Skip to main content


On June 20, 2016, in State v. Gray, the Arizona Supreme Court held that for a defendant to invoke the defense of entrapment, he or she must affirmatively admit each element of the crime. The case emerged after Maverick Gray was arrested and charged for selling cocaine to an undercover police officer, and raised the entrapment defense at trial without disputing the government’s evidence of his guilt. The court explained that simply choosing not to challenge the evidence does not rise to the level of an affirmative admission. The dissent persuasively argued that Arizona’s entrapment statute is draconian by contradicting a defendant’s right against self-incrimination, protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This Comment agrees with the dissent’s position that Arizona’s entrapment defense should be read narrowly to uphold fairness and to protect defendants’ constitutional liberties.


File nameDate UploadedVisibilityFile size
6 Sep 2022
320 kB



  • Subject
    • Constitutional Law

    • Criminal Law

    • Criminal Procedure

    • Law Enforcement and Corrections

    • State and Local Government Law

  • Journal title
    • Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice

  • Volume
    • 37

  • Issue
    • 3

  • Pagination
    • E. Supp. 32

  • Date submitted

    6 September 2022