Court Opinion

ID: 9602379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:53:57.498776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:49.133324
License: Public Domain

WILKINS, Justice:
(concurring with comments).
I agree with the main opinion reversing the judgment and remanding the case for a new trial based upon error in allowing into evidence testimony relating to prior contacts between defendant and the undercover agent. I also agree with Mr. Justice Crockett’s construction of Section 76 — 2— 303(6) Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, in this case. However, I would also reverse the judgment because the objective test for entrapment was not applied in the case. The reasons I feel the objective test should apply have been effectively stated by Mr. Justice Maughan in State v. Curtis1 and State v. Bridwell.2
MAUGHAN, Justice, concurs in the views expressed in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice WILKINS.

. Utah, 542 P.2d 744 (1975).

. Utah, 566 P.2d 1232 (1977).