State v. Hines, 985 N.W.2d 625

In Jan–Mar 2021 a 61‑year‑old defendant, Perry F. Hines, communicated on Facebook with an account purporting to be a teenage girl, “Lily Williamson,” actually an undercover Grand Island police officer.
During weeks of chats Hines initiated sexual topics, was told first that Lily was 16 and later that she was 14, sent a photo of his penis, and repeatedly proposed meeting in person.
Hines arranged a meeting at a public park; he drove there and was arrested when the undercover officer and other officers were present.
A jury convicted Hines of use of an electronic communication device to commit sexual assault and enticement by an electronic communication device; the district court denied Hines’ requested entrapment jury instruction.
The court sentenced Hines to 15–30 years on the first count and 23–24 months on the second, to run consecutively; Hines appealed, arguing the court should have instructed on entrapment and that his sentences were excessive.

Issue	State's Argument	Hines' Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by refusing an entrapment jury instruction	The evidence showed no inducement by law enforcement; the officer only provided an opportunity	The undercover officer’s statements and profile constituted inducement (persuasion, appeals to sympathy, or exploitation of noncriminal motives)	No error; defendant failed to show more than a scintilla of evidence of inducement; decoy’s conduct was opportunity, not persuasion or exploitation; instruction properly denied
Whether sentences were excessive	Sentence was within statutory limits and the court considered aggravating/mitigating factors	Court failed to give adequate weight to age, claimed motives, addiction, lack of violence, and risk assessment results	No abuse of discretion; court considered required factors, found few mitigators, and the sentences were lawful

State v. Pischel, 277 Neb. 412 (2009) (inducement requires more than opportunity; defendant must produce more than a scintilla of evidence to get entrapment instruction)
State v. Heitman, 262 Neb. 185 (2001) (entrapment where decoy encouraged explicit sexual descriptions and suggested an in‑person meeting with urgency)
State v. Lampone, 205 Neb. 325 (1980) (law enforcement may use decoys and artifice in investigations)
Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) (use of sympathy by informant can establish inducement)
U.S. v. Gendron, 18 F.3d 955 (1st Cir. 1994) (deception alone is not entrapment; otherwise many investigations would be thwarted)
U.S. v. Poehlman, 217 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2000) (government exploited defendant’s desire for a relationship to induce criminal acts)
State v. Swenson, 217 Neb. 820 (1984) (mere inquiry or request does not suffice for inducement)
State v. Canaday, 263 Neb. 566 (2002) (entrapment analysis and relevance of government exploiting noncriminal motives)
State v. Graham, 259 Neb. 966 (2000) (opportunity provided by decoy does not equal entrapment)
State v. Archie, 305 Neb. 835 (2020) (appellate review of sentences within statutory limits)
State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773 (2020) (appellate standard for reviewing alleged excessive sentences)