## Facts

- William S. Doran picked up a hitchhiker, Nona F. Wilson, who was a paid civilian agent for a multi-county undercover drug unit tasked with arranging drug buys for cash.
- Wilson repeatedly asked Doran if he dealt drugs; he denied it and initially refused her requests to obtain drugs, advising her to get a job.
- Over several weeks, Wilson frequently contacted Doran and claimed she desperately needed money to hire a lawyer to regain custody of her children, becoming increasingly emotional and crying during requests.
- Wilson introduced Doran at a bar to David High, an undercover narcotics agent, and continued pressing Doran to obtain drugs to sell.
- Doran ultimately participated in multiple drug transactions and was indicted on six counts of aggravated trafficking and one count of permitting drug abuse.
- At trial, Doran raised entrapment; the court instructed on entrapment but did not assign any burden of proof to either party for that defense.
- Doran was convicted; the court of appeals affirmed, finding no prejudice from the omitted burden allocation.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted review to determine the entrapment standard, whether entrapment is an affirmative defense, and whether the jury instruction error required reversal.

## Issues

1. Should Ohio define entrapment under the subjective (predisposition-focused) test or the objective (police-conduct-focused) test?
2. Is entrapment an affirmative defense under Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.05(C)(2)?
3. Is it prejudicial error for a jury instruction on entrapment to omit any allocation of the burden of proof?

## Decision

- Ohio adopted the subjective entrapment test, focusing on whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense and whether the criminal design originated with government officials.
- Entrapment was held to be an affirmative defense under Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.05(C)(2).
- A jury instruction that fails to allocate any burden of proof on the affirmative defense of entrapment was held inherently misleading and prejudicial error.
- The convictions were reversed and the case remanded for a new trial due to the defective entrapment instruction.

## Legal Principles

- Entrapment is established when the criminal design originates with government officials who implant in the mind of an otherwise innocent person the disposition to commit the offense and induce its commission to prosecute.
- Ohio applies the subjective entrapment standard; predisposition of the accused is the central inquiry rather than the propriety of police inducement in the abstract.
- Entrapment is an affirmative defense under Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.05(C)(2); the defendant bears the burden to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, while the state must prove offense elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A trial court must instruct the jury on the allocation of the burden of proof for entrapment; omission of any allocation is inherently confusing and requires reversal.
- Predisposition may be evaluated using indicators such as prior involvement, ready acquiescence, familiarity or knowledge, access to contraband, and willing participation.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio required use of a predisposition-based (subjective) entrapment test, classified entrapment as an affirmative defense with a defendant-borne preponderance burden, and ordered a new trial because the jury was not told who bore the burden of proof on entrapment.


State v. Doran, 5 Ohio St. 3d 187 (1983)