Cited by

“The essence of a swindle is the defrauding of another of his property by deliberate artifice.” see Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd.

State v. Olkon , 1 Merely supplying a defendant with the opportunity to commit a crime is not enough to establish that the government actor induced the crime.

This is shown by “persuasion, badgering, or pressure by the state.”

State v. Olkon , , 107 (Minn. 1980).

at 123-24 (affirming a district court’s decision to call six of the twelve jurors); (stating that the district court “did not abuse its discretion in determining to call six jurors, four of whom were referred to in the allegations of misconduct”).

To establish inducement, a defendant must show that “the state did something more than merely solicit the commission of a crime.”

The state ’s does not promote a different result.

To succeed under this prong, t he 5 defendant must show “that the state did something more than merely solicit the commission of a crime.”

17 “The essence of a swindle is the *111 defrauding of another of his property by deliberate artifice.” see also State v. Ruffin, 280 Minn. 126 , , 206 (1968) (“[T]he statute punishes any fraudulent scheme, trick, or device whereby the wrongdoer deprives the victim of his money by deceit or betrayal of confidence.”).

(providing that transc ript of recording should not ordinarily be admitted into evidence unless both sides stipulate to its accuracy and agree to its use as evidence).

20(7) authorizes district courts to “accept a partial verdict if the jury has reached a verdict on fewer than all of the charges and is unable to reach a verdict on the re st.” And the supreme court has concluded “that it was not improper to accept a verdict on only some of the counts charged when the jury was unable to reach a verdict on all counts.”

The required elements of an attempt are “(1) an intent to commit a crime, and (2) a substantial step taken toward the crime’s commission.”

Inducement requires a showing that “the state did something more than merely solicit the commission of a crime.”

For example, in State v. Olkon, we described the “essential elements of the crime of attempt” and stated that “the crimes of conspiracy and attempt each require distinct elements of proof and are entirely separate crimes.” (emphasis added).

2(4) (providing that a person commits theft who “by swindling, whether by artifice, trick, device, or any other means, obtains 7 property or services from another person”).7 “The essence of a swindle is the defrauding of another of his property by deliberate artifice.”

2(4) (providing that a person commits theft who “by swindling, whether by artifice, trick, device, or any other means, obtains property or services from another person”).6 “The essence of a swindle is the defrauding of another of his property by deliberate artifice.”

Inducement requires a showing that “the state did something more than merely solicit the commission of a crime.”

“A defendant’s ready response to the government’s solicitation of the crime satisfies the ‘other adequate means’ basis for predisposition.” Johnson, d at 755 ().

Regarding inducement, “the evidence must show that the state did something more than merely solicit the commission of a crime.” cert.

To establish inducement, “the evidence must show that the state did something more than merely solicit the commission of a crime.” (affirming district court’s dismissal of entrapment defense when “state merely provided defendant with the opportunity to commit the crime”).

-04 (Minn.1980) (explaining that the trial court properly followed the McMillan guidelines for use of transcripts of tape recordings at trial when the court limited the use of the transcripts to assisting the jurors when listening to the tapes).

(noting that rulings on evidentiary matters, including whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence, rest within the district court’s discretion).