The Entrapment Defense in Michigan Sex Sting Cases

Entrapment in Michigan is a claim about what the police did, not about whether the accused committed the act. As the Michigan Supreme Court restated on July 31, 2026 in People v Jade, a defendant is considered entrapped if either (1) the police engaged in impermissible conduct that would induce a law-abiding person to commit a crime in similar circumstances, or (2) the police engaged in conduct so reprehensible that it cannot be tolerated.^[1] The trial judge, not the jury, decides the question at a separate hearing, and the defendant bears the burden of proving entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence.^[4][3]

This page explains what the Michigan Supreme Court's decision and the statutes say. It is not legal advice and is not a recommendation to rely on entrapment or any other defense; the Court in Jade did not decide whether the defendant there was entrapped.

This page explains the test, the procedure, and what Jade changed for internet sting cases. As of October 2026, articles written before that decision, or relying on the 2024 Court of Appeals opinion in the same case, describe law the Supreme Court has since clarified; the Court of Appeals opinion was vacated.^[5] How sting investigations are charged is covered in Online sting operations.

What is Michigan's entrapment test?

The Court calls it a two-prong, modified objective test, and a defendant is entitled to dismissal of charges if either prong is satisfied.^[2]

Prong	What the court asks
Unlawful inducement	Whether police conduct exceeded the mere offering of an opportunity to commit a crime and instead involved tactics that could have induced or instigated the criminal act by a hypothetical law-abiding person in the defendant's circumstances.[2]
Reprehensible conduct	Whether governmental actors engaged in conduct so egregious that it "cannot be tolerated" because allowing the conviction to stand would endorse a misuse of governmental power.[7]

The Court said the test focuses on unlawful government conduct, not on a defendant's predisposition to commit the charged offense.^[1] Jade addressed a phrase from earlier cases, "ready and willing," and said it functions only as a tool to help courts distinguish police inducement from a defendant's independent agency or predisposition; it does not add any element to the inducement prong.^[7]

Who decides, and what is the procedure?

The procedure comes from the Court's 1977 decision in People v D'Angelo, which Jade describes as the framework that continues to govern entrapment claims.^[4]

1. A separate hearing. Entrapment is heard at a separate evidentiary hearing.^[4]
2. The judge decides. The trial judge, not the jury, decides the issue based on evidence presented outside of the jury's presence.^[4]
3. The defendant's burden. The defendant bears the burden of proving entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence, because the claim places the defendant in an accusatorial posture on an issue irrelevant to guilt or innocence.^[3]
4. No admission needed. The defendant need not admit the charged crime to assert the defense.^[4]
5. Limited use of the testimony. Testimony at the entrapment hearing is inadmissible in the case-in-chief for any purpose except impeachment.^[4]

A defendant who satisfies either prong is entitled to dismissal of the charges.^[2] On appeal, the trial court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error and its ultimate legal determination whether entrapment occurred is reviewed de novo.^[5]

On the elements of the offense the prosecutor carries the burden beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant is not required to prove innocence or to do anything.^[8] For entrapment the Court places the burden on the defendant because the defense "places the defendant in an accusatorial posture upon an issue which . . . is irrelevant to his guilt or innocence."^[3]

What factors does the judge weigh?

For unlawful inducement, Jade says courts may consider these twelve nonexhaustive factors from People v Johnson (2002):^[9]

• Whether there existed appeals to the defendant's sympathy as a friend.^[9]
• Whether the defendant had been known to commit the crime with which he was charged.^[9]
• Whether there were any long time lapses between the investigation and the arrest.^[9]
• Whether there existed any inducements that would make the commission of a crime unusually attractive to a hypothetical law-abiding citizen.^[10]
• Whether there were offers of excessive consideration or other enticement.^[10]
• Whether there was a guarantee that the acts alleged as crimes were not illegal.^[9]
• Whether, and to what extent, any government pressure existed.^[9]
• Whether there existed sexual favors.^[9]
• Whether there were any threats of arrest.^[9]
• Whether there existed any government procedures that tended to escalate the criminal culpability of the defendant.^[10]
• Whether there was police control over any informant.^[10]
• Whether the investigation was targeted.^[10]

Jade cautions that the factors "are not mere boxes to be checked." Trial courts are to ask whether the police conduct went beyond merely offering an opportunity to commit the charged offense and whether it could have induced a hypothetical law-abiding person to commit an offense they were not otherwise ready and willing to commit.^[9] The Court added that the presence or absence of the factors in any given case may not be dispositive.^[9]

What did People v Jade decide?

The case

Jade arose from what the opinion's syllabus calls a child sex trafficking reverse sting operation. The defendant responded to an online advertisement that listed a woman's age as 20; in a text message chat the decoy then stated that she was 15 years old.^[11] He was charged with accosting a child for immoral purposes, child sexually abusive activity, and two counts of using a computer to commit a crime, and moved to dismiss on the ground of entrapment; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing.^[12] He pleaded guilty to accosting a child for immoral purposes.^[12]

The holding on escalation

The Court said that where the record reflects a defendant's willingness to commit a lesser offense not charged, one materially less serious than the offense actually charged, trial courts must consider whether law enforcement escalated the defendant's conduct from the lesser offense to the more serious charged offense.^[5] The syllabus summarizes the remand: the trial court is to consider the escalatory nature of the police conduct, including the increase in offense and punishment between the crime the defendant was ready and willing to commit and the crimes with which he was ultimately charged.^[13]

The Court described the principle and its limit in the same passage. Escalation applies when police conduct transforms a suspect's apparent willingness to commit a less serious offense into exposure for a more serious, different-order offense.^[14] There is no escalation constituting entrapment when police simply give a suspect another opportunity to commit the same offense the suspect previously committed.^[14]

What the Court did not decide

The Court wrote that it did "not reach the ultimate question of whether Jade was entrapped as a matter of law."^[5] It vacated the Court of Appeals opinion and remanded to the trial court to apply the clarified framework and determine whether impermissible escalation occurred; the trial court may make additional factual findings.^[5] The outcome on remand is not known from the sources used for this page.

Is "there was no real child" a defense?

This is a different argument from entrapment, and the Michigan Supreme Court rejected it in the one case the sources describe. In People v Thousand (2001), where the person the defendant believed to be a minor was an undercover officer, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the nonexistence of a minor victim did not give rise to a viable defense to the attempt charge, and that the circuit court erred in dismissing it on the basis of "legal impossibility."^[6]

Two statutes refer to belief in their text:

• MCL 750.145d covers communication for the purpose of committing listed offenses in which the victim or intended victim is a minor or is believed by that person to be a minor.^[15] The Court of Appeals has said the statute criminalizes communication with a minor or perceived minor with the specific intent to make that person the victim of one of the listed crimes, and that "words alone" are not punishable under it.^[16]
• The accosting statute covers an individual whom the person believes is a child less than 16 years of age.^[17]

See Using a computer to commit a crime and Accosting a child for immoral purposes. A belief that the other person was an adult is addressed in Mistake of age is not a defense.

Does Michigan's test apply in federal court?

This page describes Michigan state law. Jade is a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court about Michigan's test.^[18] Federal prosecutions are governed by federal law, which this page does not cover; see Federal enticement of a minor.

What people get wrong

"The jury decides entrapment." The trial judge decides, at a hearing outside the jury's presence.^[4]

"The police have to prove there was no entrapment." The burden is the defendant's, by a preponderance of the evidence.^[3]

"A sting is entrapment by definition." Offering an opportunity to commit a crime is not enough; the question is whether police conduct went beyond that.^[2]

"After Jade, stings that mention a younger age are entrapment." Jade requires courts to consider escalation and sent the case back; it did not reach whether there was entrapment, and it also said there is no escalation constituting entrapment when police simply give a suspect another opportunity to commit the same offense.^[5][14]

The other defenses and their limits are summarized in Defenses to sex crime charges, and recent changes in this area of law are listed in the law changes timeline.