Criminal Law · Entrapment

medium frequency

MBE Criminal Law: Entrapment

A comprehensive breakdown of the entrapment defense as examined on the MBE.

Overview

Entrapment is a defense in criminal law that occurs when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise committed. The entrapment defense is often assessed under two principal tests: the subjective test, assessing the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime, and the objective test, which examines whether law enforcement's conduct was so overbearing that it would induce a normally law-abiding citizen to commit the crime.

The subjective standard focuses on the defendant's state of mind and past behavior, while the objective standard evaluates the legality and appropriateness of the police conduct involved. Jurisdictions may differ on which test they adhere to or how they balance the two tests, leading to different outcomes in court on entrapment defenses. Because of the nuanced approach to evaluating entrapment claims, it is a commonly tested area on the MBE, with scenario questions requiring examinees to apply their knowledge to fact patterns rather than simply recite rules.

Key Rules
  1. Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officials create a crime and persuade an individual to commit it.
  2. The subjective test assesses predisposition and requires that the defendant was not otherwise inclined to commit the crime.
  3. The objective test examines whether the law enforcement's conduct is unacceptable in enticing someone to commit a crime.
  4. The burden of proof for entrapment typically lies with the defendant.
  5. Affirmative defenses like entrapment can lead to acquittal if successfully proven.
Common Question Patterns
  • Determining if a defendant's predisposition to commit a crime was sufficient to negate an entrapment defense.
  • Analyzing whether the actions of law enforcement constituted entrapment as opposed to legitimate investigation.
  • Comparing situations with different levels of police persuasion and inducement.
Practice Questions

1. Police officers, posing as drug dealers, actively persuade a clean-record citizen to buy drugs with promises of easy money. The citizen has never used drugs before. Is the citizen entitled to an entrapment defense?

A. A) Yes, because the police initiated the crime.(Correct)

B. B) No, because the citizen had the capacity to seek out drugs.

C. C) Yes, because the citizen does not have a criminal history.

D. D) No, because the citizen ultimately made the choice to buy drugs.

Explanation: The citizen is entitled to an entrapment defense because the police initiated and induced the crime.

2. A man with a history of petty theft is approached by undercover officers who suggest he commit a robbery. They make the idea very appealing. Does his previous criminal history negate his entrapment defense?

A. A) Yes, once a criminal, always a criminal.

B. B) No, the question is if he was predisposed to commit this specific crime due to the police's persuasion.(Correct)

C. C) Yes, as he could have chosen not to commit the crime.

D. D) No, his history is irrelevant to the police actions.

Explanation: His previous history does not negate his defense; it is the predisposition regarding this specific crime that matters.

3. An undercover agent sells a firearm to a person who normally abides by laws and does not have a history of violent crime. The agent employs coercive tactics, threatening to expose the person unless he agrees. Can the individual claim entrapment?

A. A) No, because there was voluntary participation.

B. B) Yes, because police coercion can constitute entrapment.(Correct)

C. C) No, courts do not allow entrapment for inanimate object sales.

D. D) Yes, there would be no intent to commit the crime without coercion.

Explanation: Coercive tactics by law enforcement can create an entrapment situation, negating voluntary participation.

4. After being encouraged multiple times by officers to steal a car, an individual reluctantly agrees. Given the encouragement, does he have a valid entrapment defense?

A. A) Yes, because he was pushed to commit a crime.(Correct)

B. B) No, because he eventually agreed.

C. C) Yes, because the officers made it too easy.

D. D) No, willingness is still willingness.

Explanation: The encouragement and pressure from the officers can support an entrapment claim.

5. A person with no prior criminal record is deceitfully invited to a location by an undercover officer to discuss a fictitious legal loophole for drug distribution, which encourages him to participate. Can he claim entrapment?

A. A) Yes, because the inducement was entirely manufactured.(Correct)

B. B) No, because he was invited on his own accord.

C. C) Yes, but only if he felt forced.

D. D) No, his passive role means no entrapment.

Explanation: The entirely manufactured inducement by law enforcement can establish a valid entrapment defense.

Test-Taking Tips
  • Identify whether the police conduct in the scenario goes beyond acceptable operations.
  • Assess the defendant's character and past behavior when evaluating predisposition.
  • Stay alert to the nuances of 'encouragement' vs. 'coercion' in various scenarios.

Master MBE Topics with Briefly

Get AI-powered study tools, practice questions, and comprehensive legal resources.