People v Jade
Key claim: The Michigan Supreme Court held that only factual findings after an entrapment hearing are reviewed for clear error while the ultimate entrapment determination is reviewed de novo, and clarified that a defendant’s readiness and willingness are conceptual aspects of the objective unlawful-inducement inquiry rather than separate elements.
Abstract
Michigan Supreme Court opinion decided 2026-07-31. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Megan K. Cavanagh Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas Noah P. Hood
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions: prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Kimberly K. Muschong
PEOPLE v JADE
Docket No. 167920. Argued January 21, 2026 (Calendar No. 2). Decided July 31, 2026.
Jayneel R. Jade pleaded guilty in the Van Buren Circuit Court to accosting a child for
immoral purposes, MCL 750.145a. Defendant responded to an advertisement posted on a website
by sheriff’s deputies working as part of a two-county joint task force to conduct child sex
trafficking reverse sting operations. The advertisement depicted a woman whose age was listed
as 20, but who was actually an 18-year-old woman working in law enforcement, and described
various sexual activities that “this service provider may enjoy.” During a text message chat
between defendant and a decoy, the decoy asked defendant if he was “cool with younger chicks”
and stated that she was 15 years old. Defendant responded, “Got to be 16,” and when the decoy
reiterated that she was “actually 15,” defendant asked if they could talk on the phone. Defendant
and the decoy had a phone conversation, which was not recorded. After the phone call, the text
chat resumed, and the decoy asked if defendant was “cool with $80” for oral sex and intercourse.
Defendant did not respond directly, but instead asked the decoy if she would like to go out to eat.
The decoy directed the text conversation back to sex for money, and shortly thereafter, defendant
arrived at a hotel room where an undercover officer was present. Defendant was arrested by police
officers upon entering the room and was subsequently charged with one count of accosting a child
for immoral purposes, one count of child sexually abusive activity, MCL 750.145c(2)(a), and two
counts of using a computer to commit a crime, MCL 752.796.
Defendant moved to dismiss the charges on the ground of entrapment, and the trial court
held an evidentiary hearing where it applied Michigan’s two-prong entrapment test. Following
the hearing, the trial court, Kathleen M. Brickley, J., concluded that defendant had failed to satisfy
either prong of the test and denied his motion to dismiss. Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal
in the Court of Appeals, and while the appeal was pending, defendant pleaded guilty to accosting
a child for immoral purposes in exchange for dismissal of the other charges. The Court of Appeals
(BORRELLO, P.J., and LETICA, J.; MURRAY, J., concurring) affirmed the trial court’s decision in an
opinion issued on October 28, 2024 (Docket No. 365951). Defendant applied for leave to appeal
in the Supreme Court, which granted the application. ___ Mich ___; 20 NW3d 867 (2025).
In an opinion by Justice HOOD, joined by Chief Justice CAVANAGH and Justices
BERNSTEIN, WELCH, BOLDEN, and THOMAS, the Supreme Court held:
1. A trial court’s factual findings following an entrapment hearing are reviewed for clear error, and its ultimate legal determination regarding whether entrapment occurred and its resolution of any underlying legal questions are reviewed de novo. There is a discrepancy in Michigan’s entrapment caselaw between this Court’s longstanding acknowledgment that entrapment is a matter of law and the Court’s prior recognition of a clear-error standard for entrapment decisions that failed to distinguish between factual and legal determinations. To the extent that prior opinions suggest otherwise, it is now necessary to clarify that only factual findings in an entrapment context are reviewed for clear error, while the ultimate entrapment determination and any other legal determinations are reviewed de novo.
2. Under the unlawful-inducement prong of the test used to analyze entrapment claims, a
court must consider a defendant’s readiness and willingness to commit the charged crime. Under the current modified objective entrapment test in Michigan, a defendant is considered entrapped if either (1) the police engaged in impermissible conduct that would induce a law-abiding person to commit a crime in similar circumstances (unlawful inducement), or (2) the police engaged in conduct so reprehensible that it cannot be tolerated (reprehensible conduct). The unlawful- inducement inquiry is objective, focusing on a hypothetical person, and may be assessed by considering 12 nonexhaustive factors, set forth in People v Johnson, 466 Mich 491, 498-499 (2002), including whether the police engaged in escalation, pressure, targeting, and offers of excessive consideration. Additionally, the trial court must ask whether the police conduct went beyond merely offering an opportunity to commit a crime and instead involved tactics that could have induced or instigated the criminal act by a hypothetical law-abiding person in the defendant’s circumstances who was not otherwise ready and willing to commit the offense. While a court must consider a defendant’s readiness and willingness to commit the charged crime, readiness and willingness and “mere opportunity” are not separate elements that must be independently established. Rather, the phrase “ready and willing” is a conceptual expression of the objective- causation inquiry and serves as a way to identify whether the cause of the offense came from law enforcement rather than the defendant.
Under the reprehensible-conduct prong, police conduct must be more reprehensible than
conduct under the unlawful-inducement prong. This prong may be met without regard to causation so long as the conduct in question is egregious enough to be intolerable by a civilized society, and it requires an inquiry into whether the police conduct falls below standards for the proper use of governmental power.
3. Escalatory conduct constitutes entrapment under the unlawful-inducement prong if it
would induce a law-abiding person in similar circumstances to commit the offense, while escalation constitutes entrapment under the reprehensible-conduct prong if it falls below standards, to which common feelings respond, for the proper use of governmental power. Further, escalation from a less serious offense to a more serious offense may itself establish entrapment. The core principle of escalation applies whenever police conduct transforms a suspect’s apparent willingness to commit a less serious offense into exposure for a more serious, different-order offense. But there is no escalation constituting entrapment when the police simply give a suspect another opportunity to commit the same offense that the suspect previously committed, or when the police delay arresting the suspect when the effectiveness of a legitimate, ongoing undercover investigation depends on the delay. 4. The Court of Appeals applied an incorrect standard of review, and remand is required under th
Why this matters
The Michigan Supreme Court held that only factual findings after an entrapment hearing are reviewed for clear error while the ultimate entrapment determination is reviewed de novo, and clarified that a defendant’s readiness and willingness are conceptual aspects of the objective unlawful-inducement inquiry rather than separate elements.