Understanding Entrapment as a Defense in Maryland Criminal Cases

Entrapment is a defense available to individuals who allege they were unlawfully persuaded or coerced by law enforcement into committing a crime they otherwise would not have committed. Maryland’s courts use a subjective standard for entrapment, which focuses on the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime rather than solely on law enforcement’s conduct. This post provides an in-depth look at the entrapment defense in Maryland, including legal standards, jury instructions, and illustrative case law.

What is Entrapment?

Under Maryland law, entrapment occurs when:

The defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime before law enforcement’s involvement, and
The defendant was induced or persuaded by law enforcement or someone acting on their behalf to commit the offense.

To successfully argue entrapment, defendants must demonstrate that the government induced them to commit a crime they were not already inclined to commit. It’s essential to understand that Maryland’s subjective standard examines both the defendant’s willingness (or predisposition) to commit the crime and the actions of law enforcement.

Does Entrapment Apply in My Criminal Case?

If you plan to claim entrapment as a defense, you cannot deny commiting the criminal offense that you are charged with! Entrapment applies when there is evidence of “improper inducing behavior” by law enforcement, and when the defendant was not otherwise inclined to commit the offense.

If your case is a felony drug distribution charge involving a controlled buy with a confidential informant, then perhaps entrapment might apply to your case.

How Do I Know if I Can Claim Entrapment?

Determining whether entrapment is a viable defense in your case involves analyzing both your actions and law enforcement’s conduct. According to Maryland case law in Adcock v. State, 66 Md. App. 454, 456, 504 A.2d 1160, 1161 (1986), a defendant must produce initial evidence that demonstrates:

Improper Inducing Behavior by Law Enforcement: This includes showing that the government’s behavior was aimed at persuading or pressuring you to commit a crime, rather than just giving you an opportunity.
Actual Succumbing to Inducement: This means showing that, but for law enforcement’s involvement, you would not have committed the crime.

For example, if you’re charged with drug distrubtion, you might be able to claim entrapment if you were enticed into selling drugs during a controlled buy by a promise of a significant sum of money, but there’s no other evidence that you would have otherwise sold drugs or did in the past.

What Happens After Meeting the Initial Burden for Entrapment?

Once a defendant produces sufficient evidence of inducement and lack of predisposition, Maryland law shifts the burden of proof to the State. At this stage, the State must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense, regardless of law enforcement’s actions. According to Jacobson v. United States and Kenney v. State, the State can introduce evidence such as prior similar acts or other indications of predisposition to establish that the defendant’s criminal intent was independent of law enforcement’s influence.

If the State fails to meet this burden, the jury must acquit the defendant based on entrapment. However, if the State successfully shows that the defendant was ready and willing to commit the crime, the entrapment defense will not apply.

Key Elements of Entrapment: Maryland Jury Instruction

Maryland’s jury instruction on entrapment, MPJI-Cr 5:04, guides jurors on how to evaluate entrapment claims. Here’s a breakdown of this instruction and how it applies in court:

Predisposition to Commit the Crime: The first element in determining entrapment is whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. Predisposition involves the willingness to commit a crime, and it may be shown by evidence that the defendant was ready to commit the offense before contact with law enforcement. Maryland law does not require proof of prior criminal conduct to establish predisposition, but evidence of similar conduct can be considered if relevant.
Government Inducement: The second element is whether law enforcement or its agents induced or persuaded the defendant to commit the crime. Inducement refers to more than simply providing an opportunity to commit an offense; it often involves actions or statements that persuade someone who would not have otherwise committed the crime.

According to MPJI-Cr 5:04, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was either predisposed to commit the crime or was not induced by law enforcement. If there is any reasonable doubt regarding either factor, the jury must find the defendant not guilty on the basis of entrapment.

How Maryland Courts Evaluate Entrapment Claims

The subjective test Maryland uses for entrapment focuses on two main inquiries:

Whether there was inducement by law enforcement, and
Whether the defendant showed predisposition to commit the offense prior to contact with law enforcement.

Merely providing a favorable opportunity to commit a crime is insufficient for entrapment. For example, an undercover officer posing as a drug buyer does not constitute entrapment unless the officer persuades a person not predisposed to sell drugs into doing so.

Predisposition: The Key Factor

Predisposition is the defendant’s readiness or willingness to commit the offense before law enforcement involvement. Courts will look at:

Past similar conduct or criminal history (if applicable),
The defendant’s responses to law enforcement’s suggestions or opportunities, and
Any reluctance or hesitation displayed by the defendant during law enforcement’s approach.

Maryland courts assess predisposition with a focus on whether the defendant exhibited signs of willingness to engage in criminal behavior prior to being contacted by law enforcement.

Maryland Case Law on Entrapment

Several Maryland cases provide insight into how courts interpret and apply entrapment:

Bowser v. State (1981)

In Bowser v. State, the court held that entrapment arises when law enforcement originates the idea of a crime and persuades a person to commit the offense when they were not predisposed. The court reinforced that merely presenting an opportunity is not enough to establish entrapment-inducement must include persuasion or coercion.

Stevenson v. State (1997)

In Stevenson v. State, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that prior drug-related conduct by the defendant indicated a predisposition to commit the drug sale offense at issue, negating the entrapment defense. The court highlighted that evidence of a defendant’s prior willingness to engage in similar conduct can defeat an entrapment claim.

Jacobson v. United States (1992)

While not a Maryland case, Jacobson v. United States is often cited to clarify entrapment principles. The U.S. Supreme Court held that prolonged government efforts to persuade a previously uninterested defendant to commit a crime could constitute entrapment, especially if the defendant initially showed no inclination to engage in the illegal act.

Practical Considerations for Defendants Claiming Entrapment

Entrapment defenses can be challenging because they place the burden on the defendant to demonstrate government inducement and lack of predisposition. Here are essential steps for mounting an entrapment defense:

Presenting Evidence of Government Inducement: Strong evidence, such as recordings or communications showing law enforcement’s persuasive tactics, can help demonstrate inducement. For example, an officer’s repeated requests or promises of rewards might support an entrapment claim.
Demonstrating Lack of Predisposition: Character evidence, witnesses attesting to the defendant’s law-abiding nature, or lack of criminal history can support a claim that the defendant was not predisposed to commit the offense.
Highlighting Inconsistent Officer Conduct: Courts scrutinize instances where law enforcement may have overstepped boundaries. If an officer’s actions go beyond providing an opportunity and veer into coercion, this could strengthen an entrapment defense.

FAQs

Q: Is entrapment a valid defense in all criminal cases in Maryland?
A: Entrapment can be used in many criminal cases, but it is particularly common in cases involving proactive law enforcement operations, such as drug sales or undercover stings. For entrapment to apply, there must be evidence that the crime originated with law enforcement, and that the defendant was not otherwise inclined to commit it.

Q: How does predisposition affect an entrapment defense?
A: Predisposition is a key factor. If the defendant was already inclined to commit the crime before encountering law enforcement, an entrapment defense will likely fail. The jury will consider the defendant’s behavior, history, and response to law enforcement’s actions.

Q: Does refusing a law enforcement request initially help my entrapment defense?
A: Yes, if the defendant initially refused or showed hesitation, it can indicate a lack of predisposition. However, additional evidence is typically needed to establish a strong entrapment defense.

Q: What if I took an opportunity presented by an undercover officer?
A: Simply taking an opportunity provided by law enforcement does not constitute entrapment. There must be clear evidence of inducement or persuasion beyond just offering the chance to commit the crime.

If you believe you were entrapped or want to discuss your legal options, contact FrizWoods for a consultation. Our experienced attorneys understand Maryland’s entrapment laws and are prepared to build a strong defense on your behalf.

Free Consultation