Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that government agents may not create a criminal scheme, encourage an innocent person to commit the crime, and then induce the commission of the crime—all so the government can prosecute the crime.

Criminal offenses such as the sale of narcotics and the bribery of public officials are generally committed by persons working together to achieve a criminal objective—as opposed to crimes that are committed against an unwilling victim. This often makes these consensual crimes more difficult to prosecute. To deter this criminal behavior, undercover police or FBI agents (or a person who has “flipped” and is working with the government) may encourage suspected persons to engage in the criminal behavior.

When criminal charges are filed to prosecute these crimes involving a government agent, the defendant often believes he was entrapped and that he may rely on the entrapment defense to avoid a conviction for the crime. When considering an entrapment defense, the first question is whether the criminal offense was induced by a government agent. And if the government has induced the defendant to break the law, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act before being approached by the government agent.

If the prosecution can prove the defendant was ready and willing to commit the crime whenever the opportunity was presented, the defendant will not be able to rely on the entrapment defense. But if the government’s pursuit of a criminal conviction leads to charges against an otherwise law-abiding citizen who, if left to his own devices would likely not violate the law, the defendant may rely on the entrapment defense to avoid being convicted of the crime.

In Indiana, entrapment occurs when a government agent induces a person to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise been predisposed to commit. The defense of entrapment can be raised when a defendant believes that they were improperly encouraged or induced by law enforcement to commit a crime. For the entrapment defense to be successful, it must be shown that the initiation of the criminal conduct was due to the persuasion or coercion of the government agent, rather than the defendant's own readiness and willingness to commit the crime. If the prosecution can demonstrate that the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense, the entrapment defense will not succeed. However, if the defendant was not predisposed and was essentially a law-abiding citizen who was lured into committing the crime by the actions of the government, then the entrapment defense may be a valid argument to avoid conviction.