¶13 When a defendant raises the defense of entrapment, he or she is first required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was induced by law enforcement to commit the crime. If the defendant cannot do so, the entrapment defense fails. State v. Pence, 150 Wis. 2d 759, 765, 442 N.W.2d 540 (Ct. App. 1989) (citing Saternus, 127 Wis. 2d at 480-81). ¶14 But, not every inducement by law enforcement leads to a finding of entrapment.
Burkes v.Hales, 165 Wis. 2d 585, 590-91, 478 N.W.2d 37 (Ct.App. 1991). ¶ 11 Johnson contends that State v. Pence, 150 Wis. 2d 759, 442 N.W.2d 540 (Ct.App. 1989), "is on point." He cites Pence's discussion about evidence showing a predisposition, and notes that in Pence, the court determined that both WIS. STAT. § 904.04(1)(a) and WIS. STAT. § 904.04(2) could be used to admit other acts evidence.
The state then bears the burden of proving . . . that the defendant had a prior disposition to commit the crime. State v. Pence, 150 Wis.2d 759, 765, 442 N.W.2d 540, 543 (Ct.App. 1989) (citations omitted). It is a subjective test that focuses on the defendant's state of mind which led to the intent to commit the crime — that is, "whether the police conduct affected or changed a particular defendant's state of mind."
"Entrapment is a defense available to a defendant who has been induced by law enforcement to commit an offense which the defendant was not otherwise disposed to commit." State v. Pence, 150 Wis.2d 759, 765, 442 N.W.2d 540, 542 (Ct.App. 1989). Wisconsin has adopted the subjective, origin of intent" doctrine, rather than an objective test.
¶17 Thus, in order to be entitled to the entrapment instruction, Polchert must satisfy the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that he was induced to commit the offenses by a government agent. See State v. Pence , 150 Wis. 2d 759, 765, 442 N.W.2d 540 (Ct. App. 1989) ; State v. Saternus , 127 Wis. 2d 460, 471-72, 381 N.W.2d 290 (1986). ¶18 The evidence in the record contains Taubel’s testimony, as well as a Craigslist advertisement, emails, and text messages between Polchert and Lexi which were published to the jury.
¶ 45 “Entrapment is a defense available to a defendant who has been induced by law enforcement to commit an offense which the defendant was not otherwise disposed to commit.” State v. Pence, 150 Wis.2d 759, 765, 442 N.W.2d 540 (Ct.App.1989). “The entrapment defense may only be applied when all the elements of the charged offense are established.”
"Entrapment is a defense available to a defendant who has been induced by law enforcement to commit an offense which the defendant was not otherwise disposed to commit." State v. Pence, 150 Wis. 2d 759, 765, 442 N.W.2d 540 (Ct. App. 1989). Jacques had the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was induced to commit the crime.
¶ 17 "Entrapment is a defense available to a defendant who has been induced by law enforcement to commit an offense which the defendant was not otherwise disposed to commit." State v. Pence, 150 Wis. 2d 759, 765, 442 N.W.2d 540 (Ct. App. 1989). Our supreme court has adopted a subjective test to determine the origin of the defendant's intent.
¶ 14 The recognized defense closest to Sedahl's theory is entrapment, which is available "to a defendant who has been induced by law enforcement to commit an offense which the defendant was not otherwise disposed to commit." State v. Pence, 150 Wis. 2d 759, 765, 442 N.W.2d 540 (Ct. App. 1989). Entrapment is not a basis for pretrial dismissal, but is an affirmative defense a defendant has the burden of proving at trial.
"Entrapment is a defense available to a defendant who has been induced by law enforcement to commit an offense which the defendant was not otherwise disposed to commit." State v. Pence, 150 Wis. 2d 759, 765, 442 N.W.2d 540 (Ct.App. 1989). Our supreme court has adopted a subjective test to determine the origin of the defendant's intent.