Court Opinion

ID: 9629283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:39:59.037445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:45.713452
License: Public Domain

HALL, Justice
(concurring in result):
I concur in reversing the conviction, but do so without discarding the so-called “subjective” test of entrapment in favor of the so-called “objective” test.
I adhere to the holding of this court in State v. Hansen,1 wherein it was noted that our statute 2 defining entrapment “expressly recognizes both concepts: the ‘methods’ employed by the police and whether thé crime was committed ‘by one not otherwise ready to commit it.’”
It is clear under the facts of this case that the application of either test, or both, causes the inescapable conclusion that entrapment occurred.

. Utah, 588 P.2d 164, 166 (1978).

. U.C.A., 1953, 76-2-303(1).