Opinion ID: 1163582
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Criminal Design, Plan, Predisposition, Readiness

Text: According to the record in this case, it stands without dispute that the implant of the criminal design in the mind of Janski was not his. It was impressed there by Haystack-Laabs. It was, however, the Government's burden to show that the criminal design had its origin with Janski before the State could overcome the defense of entrapment and thereby create a jury issue. It is the accused's duty to prove inducement. It is the State's duty to overcome this by proving a criminal design  a predisposition to commit the crime  a plan, if you will,  and further that the accused was:    awaiting any propitious opportunity to commit the offense. United States v. Sherman, 200 F.2d 880, 882. If this proof does not come into the record, the defense of entrapment, inducement having been proved, stands unassailed and there is, then, no issue for the fact finder. It was said in Sorrells, supra: `When the criminal design originates, not with the accused, but is conceived in the mind of the government officers, and the accused is by persuasion, deceitful representation, or inducement lured into the commission of the criminal act, the government is estopped by sound public policy from prosecution therefor.' (From Newman v. United States, (CCA 4th) 399 F.2d 128, 131)