State v. Houpt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A person is not guilty of a crime if his criminal conduct was induced or solicited by a public officer or his agent for the purposes of obtaining evidence to prosecute such person, unless: “(a) The public officer or his agent merely afforded an opportunity or facility for committing the crime in furtherance of a criminal purpose originated by such person or a co-conspirator; or “(b) The crime was of a type which is likely to occur and recur in the course of such person’s business, and the public officer or his agent in doing the inducing or soliciting did not mislead such person into believing his conduct to be lawful.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Daniels · 2 Kan. App. 2d 220 - State v. Jones

2. “. . The limitations on the conduct of an officer or his agent in subsection (a) that he ‘merely afford an opportunity or facility for committing the crime’ echoes what was said in Reichenberger relating to the conduct of officers or agents involved. In this connection we repeat our holding in Reichenberger that, in considering the facts relative to the issue of entrapment, it is essential to distinguish between a trap set for the unwary criminal and a trap set to ensnare the innocent and law abiding citizen. The valid purpose of the defense of entrapment is to protect the innocent from trickery or impermissible conduct on the part of a law enforcement officer or his agent so designed as to create a substantial risk that a person would [commit a crime] in the absence of criminal purpose to do so originating or previously existing in the mind of such person. . . .” ( 210 Kan. at 782-3 .)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 Kan. App. 2d 220 - State v. Jones · State v. Bagemehl

3. ““The language of the Illinois statute like that of 21-3210 negates the defense of entrapment if the officer or his agent merely affords a person the opportunity or facility for committing an offense in furtherance of a criminal purpose originated by such person. “Illinois courts have read their statute in the same light in which we see 21-3210 (a). In the case of People v. Gonzales, 125 Ill. App. 2d 225 , 260 N. E. 2d 234 (1970), in considering the statute the court said: “ *• • • Entrapment is not available to one who has the intention and design to commit the criminal offense, and who does commit the essential acts constituting it, merely because a law officer or his agents, for the purpose of securing evidence, affords such person the opportunity to commit the act, or purposely aids and encourages a defendant in its perpetration. . . . But, although a defendant has no prior criminal record, this factor alone cannot overcome evidence of his ability and instant willingness to make the unlawful sale as soon as the opportunity to do so is presented. . . .’ (p.232.) “Further in the opinion the court commented on the evidence as follows: “ ‘On this record we conclude that the testimony of the witnesses for the State established beyond a reasonable doubt a willing sale, with no overbearing persuasion on the part of the agents, except the suggestion of what the purchase money could buy. The only reluctance displayed at the particular time of the admitted sale related to the price ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brothers