State v. Leins

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reversing conviction when jury instruction included both improper test and proper test for entrapment in same instruction and court could not determine which rule the jury applied
• reversing conviction when jury instruction included both improper test and proper test for entrapment in same instruction and court could not determine which rule the jury applied
• reversing for new trial when trial court gave an instruction containing two tests, one proper and one improper, and the reviewing court was unable to determine which rule the jury applied
• reversing conviction when jury instruction gave both improper subjective entrapment test and proper objective entrapment test because the court was “unable to discern which rule the jury applied and must therefore reverse for a new trial”
• reversing conviction when jury instruction gave both improper subjective entrapment test and proper objective entrapment test because the court was “unable to discern which rule the jury applied and must therefore reverse for a new trial”
• requiring reversal when the court instructed the jury with both the correct test for entrapment and an improper test for entrapment because the court was “unable to discern which rule the jury applied”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).