32 Ohio App. 2d 231 - State v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““1. Entrapment constitutes a valid defense if police officers' or their agents induce a defendant to commit an offense which otherwise he had no intention of committing and, in fact,' would not have committed but for the inducement of those police officers or their agents.' “2. A person is not entrapped when police officers, for the purpose's of detecting crime, merely present a defendant with the opportunity to commit an offense. Under such circumstances, craft and pretense may be used by officers of the law to accomplish such a purpose. “3. Where there is credible evidence that a defendant has the ‘predisposition and criminal design’ to commit acts into which he claims he was entrapped, and that he was merely provided with an opportunity to commit those acts for which he was ‘apt and willing,’ he has not been entrapped.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 35 Ohio App. 3d 135 - State v. Dotson

2. ““* * * Entrapment occurs only when the criminal conduct was ‘the product of the creative activity’ of law-enforcement officials. * * * To determine whether entrapment has been established, a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal. * * *. a* * * “However, the fact that government agents ‘merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not’ constitute entrapment. * * Sherman, supra, at 372 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 4 Ohio App. 3d 308 - State v. Johnson