Utah Court of Appeals
What constitutes entrapment in Utah enticement of a minor cases? State v. Hatchett Explained
Summary
Defendant posted a Craigslist advertisement seeking men aged 18-25 for sexual encounters. An undercover agent posing as a 13-year-old responded, and defendant initiated extensive sexual communications. Defendant was arrested when he arrived at a meeting location and was convicted of enticement of a minor.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the boundaries of the entrapment defense in online sting operations targeting sexual predators in State v. Hatchett. This case provides important guidance on when law enforcement conduct crosses the line from providing opportunity into improper inducement.
Background and Facts
Defendant posted a Craigslist advertisement titled “Dad looking for Son (Provo)” seeking men aged 18-25 for sexual encounters and drug use. An undercover agent from the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, posing as “Cade,” responded asking “how yung is 2 yung.” When the agent revealed he was “almost 14,” defendant continued pursuing sexual contact, initiating at least 16 text conversations and three phone calls. The agent initiated only two text conversations. Defendant was arrested at their planned meeting location.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the undercover operation constituted entrapment under Utah Code § 76-2-303(1). Defendant argued law enforcement “created a substantial risk that the offense of enticement would occur” when the agent responded to his advertisement without prior knowledge of his interest in minors. The court applied Utah’s objective standard, which focuses solely on police conduct rather than defendant’s predisposition.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed the conviction, distinguishing State v. Kourbelas where entrapment was found. Unlike Kourbelas, the agent here did not persistently request illegal conduct or initiate discussion of sexual activity. The agent’s training to identify advertisements potentially targeting minors provided reasonable suspicion. Most significantly, defendant immediately began sexual communications after learning of the purported minor’s age, demonstrating he was “otherwise ready to commit” the offense.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah’s entrapment statute requires more than causation—defendants must show law enforcement used methods creating substantial risk that someone not otherwise ready would commit the offense. Merely providing opportunity, even through deceptive means, does not constitute entrapment. The ruling validates common undercover techniques in online predator investigations when agents avoid actively inducing criminal conduct.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Hatchett
Citation
2020 UT App 61
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20181042-CA
Date Decided
April 9, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Law enforcement did not entrap defendant when an undercover agent responded to defendant’s Craigslist advertisement seeking young men and defendant subsequently initiated sexual communications with the agent posing as a minor.
Standard of Review
Mixed question of law and fact; where factual findings are not challenged, appellate court reviews whether reasonable minds can differ as to whether entrapment occurred
Practice Tip
When defending entrapment claims, focus on whether law enforcement used improper methods beyond merely providing opportunity, as Utah follows an objective standard examining police conduct rather than defendant’s predisposition.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.