State v. Hernandez, 462 P.3d 1283

Hernandez parked in a secluded McDonald’s lot known for prostitution; an undercover female detective approached him within about a minute.
The detective asked if he was “looking for a date”; Hernandez affirmed, invited her into his car, and they negotiated sex-for-money (initially $5, then $50 accepted).
The detective confirmed Hernandez had a condom and directed him to a nearby 7‑Eleven to complete the transaction; Hernandez drove toward it and was arrested.
Hernandez was charged with patronizing a prostitute and moved to dismiss on entrapment grounds; the district court found entrapment as a matter of law and dismissed with prejudice.
The State appealed the dismissal, arguing the detective’s conduct did not constitute impermissible inducement under Utah’s entrapment standard.
The Court of Appeals reversed: applying Utah’s objective entrapment standard, the court held the officer’s conduct afforded an opportunity rather than creating a substantial risk of inducing a person not otherwise ready to commit the crime, so entrapment was not established as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly found entrapment as a matter of law	State: Officer’s approach and solicitation did not impermissibly induce criminality	Hernandez: Quick approach by an attractive undercover officer created substantial risk of inducing otherwise reluctant persons	Reversed: Entrapment not established as a matter of law; officer afforded an opportunity, not undue inducement

State v. Torres, 16 P.3d 1242 (objective standard focusing on police conduct rather than defendant predisposition)
State v. Curtis, 542 P.2d 744 (entrapment defense raises reasonable doubt that defendant acted freely and voluntarily)
State v. Kaufman, 734 P.2d 465 (entrapment exists when offense induced by officer rather than defendant’s initiative)
State v. J.D.W., 910 P.2d 1242 (officer’s conduct that merely offers opportunity does not constitute entrapment)
State v. Sprague, 680 P.2d 404 (examples of improper inducement: pleas of illness, sympathy, inordinate financial gain, persistent pressure)
State v. Taylor, 599 P.2d 496 (discussion of objective vs. subjective entrapment standards)
State v. Cripps, 692 P.2d 747 (objective entrapment inquiry focuses on government conduct)
State v. Haltom, 121 P.3d 42 (entrapment as matter of law only when reasonable minds could not differ)
State v. Tebbs, 786 P.2d 775 (defendant may need to produce some evidence to support affirmative entrapment defense)