Opinion ID: 1367509
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Entrapment in the Subject and Objective

Text: There are as few as three or as many as five rule rationales applied today within the avalanche of case precedents for entrapment principles of law. It should initially be recognized that the use of the word defense is a misnomer for an intrinsic legal theory. Entrapment is an exoneration for perceived (or admitted) criminal conduct. Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses: A Systemic Analysis, 82 Colum.L.Rev. 199 (1982); see also, Laura Gardner Webster, Building a Better Mousetrap: Reconstructing Federal Theory From Sorrells to Mathews, 32 Ariz. L.Rev. 605, 607 n. 5 (1990); and Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 380, 78 S.Ct. 819, 824-25, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958), Frankfurter, J., concurring in the result. The required inquiry tests: [t]o determine whether entrapment has been established, a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal. Sherman, 356 U.S. at 372, 78 S.Ct. at 820-21. Before we seek to fit the police conduct in this case and other contemporary activities in this state into some rule, doctrine, or justification, it is necessary to apply at least a cursory delineation of these multiple defenses. [8] The three, four, or five congruent or alternative defenses are formed from two broadly grouped categorizations: the subjective, or sometimes the federal model; and, the direct alternative which is designated the objective defense. Generally, it is considered that these approaches to entrapment defenses do not have a constitutional basis. Although not generally so directly stated, the defense comes from a supervisory or integrity maintenance responsibility of the judiciary to rebuff overreaching law enforcement techniques. Marcus, supra, at § 1.03. Justice Roberts, writing in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 457, 53 S.Ct. 210, 218, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932), based the doctrine of entrapment on a fundamental rule of public policy. The protection of its own functions and the preservation of the purity of its own temple belongs only to the court. It is the province of the court and of the court alone to protect itself and the government from such prostitution of the criminal law. The violation of the principles of justice by the entrapment of the unwary into crime should be dealt with by the court no matter by whom or at what stage of the proceedings the facts are brought to its attention. Justice Brandeis, dissenting in Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413, 425, 48 S.Ct. 373, 376, 72 L.Ed. 632 (1928), agreed that both control of governmental law breaking and judicial integrity were reasons for judicial application of entrapment. See State v. Kummer, 481 N.W.2d 437 (N.D.1992), Vande Walle, J., specially concurring. The significance of the basic theory of entrapment comes from comparison with the outrageous conduct defense, which constitutes a third defense and is derived directly from constitutional due process, as an adaptation of Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952). Entrapment dogma is thus divided: either, the subjective test, which headlines predisposition of the accused; or, the objective test, which examines the conduct of the entrapping law enforcement agency officials. The objective view analyzes entrapment from a position protective of the judicial role in achieving convictions. Webster, supra, 32 Ariz.L.Rev. at 617. Professor Webster says: If the subjective view of entrapment turns upon whether or not the government has made a new criminal of an `unwary innocent,' the objective test turns upon government creation of new crime. Id. at 617. The black letter components of the federal entrapment defense include (1) excessive governmental inducement to commit a crime aimed at (2) a non-predisposed accused. These two elements and the weight each receives account for most of the disagreement in the federal system on what constitutes entrapment.          To begin with the minority objective test for entrapment, the importance of the judiciary is to define clear boundaries for law enforcement and to identify instances in which law enforcement breaches that boundary. The selection of a target adds little to an endeavor which is deemed overreaching from its inception. The objective view analyzes entrapment from a position protective of the judicial role in achieving convictions. Id. at 617.