154 Ind. App. 75 - May v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Thus, in summary, entrapment occurs when the police or agents under their control incite, induce, instigate or lure a person into committing an offense which he otherwise would not have committed and had no intention of committing. Sherman v. United States (1958), 356 U.S. 369 , 78 S. Ct. 819 , 2 L.Ed2d. 848; Sorrells v. United States (1932), 287 U.S. 435 , 53 S. Ct. 210 , 77 L.Ed 413. However, where there is entrapment the prosecution of the crime will not be estopped where the police can show probable cause for their suspicions. Smith v. State, supra. In such cases hearsay evidence may be admitted, not to prove the guilt of the defendant, but to establish probable cause. Walker v. State, supra.” May v. State (1972), 154 Ind. App. 75 , 289 N.E.2d 135, at 138 , 33 Ind. Dec. 480 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 155 Ind. App. 226 - Reynolds v. State

2. “. . [Wjhere an accused already had the readiness and willingness to break the law, the fact that the police provide a favorable opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 155 Ind. App. 293 - Hineman v. State