How is entrapment by informants evaluated in Georgia criminal defense trials?
Where an entrapment defense under O.C.G.A. 16-3-25 involves an informant rather than an officer directly, the analysis considers whether the informant was acting on behalf of the state and whether inducement occurred. The role of the informant is central to the evaluation.
Whether the informant’s conduct can fairly be attributed to the state is examined. The entrapment defense concerns inducement by law enforcement or those acting for the state, so whether an informant was acting on behalf of the state can be significant. Much depends on whether the informant’s conduct is attributable to the state.
Inducement remains a central element. As with other entrapment claims, whether the informant induced the offense, as opposed to merely providing an opportunity, is significant. The informant’s conduct amounted to genuine inducement is examined.
Predisposition is considered. The defense generally concerns offenses a person was not predisposed to commit, so whether the person was already inclined to commit the offense can be central even where an informant was involved. Examining whether predisposition existed is part of the inquiry.
Evaluating entrapment involving an informant generally focuses on whether the informant acted for the state, whether inducement occurred, and whether the person was predisposed. The informant’s connection to the state, the presence of inducement, and the question of predisposition are the considerations on which such an evaluation rests. Whether an informant’s actions count as the state’s own often becomes the pivotal question in these cases. An informant acting as the state’s instrument, rather than on private initiative, is often the pivotal point on which these cases turn.