What’s the legal threshold for entrapment in Georgia criminal defense?
Entrapment in Georgia is defined by statute, and it sets a specific bar that goes beyond simply having contact with an undercover officer or informant. Under O.C.G.A. 16-3-25, a person is not guilty of a crime if their conduct was induced or solicited by a government officer, employee, or agent for the purpose of gathering evidence to prosecute them.
Georgia courts apply a three-part test drawn from the statute. The defense generally requires that the idea for the crime originated with the state agent, that the agent used undue persuasion, incitement, or deceit to induce the act, and that the accused was not predisposed to commit it. Predisposition alone can defeat the claim even when officers were involved.
A frequently misunderstood point is the role of predisposition. If the evidence suggests a person was ready and willing to commit the offense, and the agent merely provided an opportunity, the conduct typically falls outside the statutory definition of entrapment. Providing an opportunity is treated differently from manufacturing the crime.
The procedural structure also matters. When a defendant presents a prima facie case of entrapment, the burden shifts to the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This often makes the factual record, including recorded communications and the sequence of contacts between agent and accused, central to how the issue is resolved.
A defining feature of the defense in Georgia is that raising it generally requires admitting the act occurred. Because entrapment justifies the conduct rather than denying it, a person asserting the defense ordinarily concedes commission of the offense and argues that the criminal intent originated with the government. This is a significant consideration, since it shapes the posture of the case from the outset.
The decisive question is almost always predisposition. Because Georgia treats entrapment as a justification rather than a denial that the act occurred, the dispute centers on whether the state merely offered an opportunity to someone already willing, or instead originated and induced a crime the accused would not otherwise have committed.