State of Utah v. Luke Martin Buranek, 2025 UT App 92, Opinion No. 20230969-CA, filed June 20, 2025, The Utah Court of Appeals
Quick Summary: This case addresses the legal defense of entrapment, particularly in the context of online interactions leading to sexual offenses. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant’s conviction for enticing a minor, finding that an undercover agent’s actions did not constitute entrapment because the defendant readily pursued the criminal activity.
Facts: In May 2022, Luke Martin Buranek, 19, posted an ad on a dating website for adults, seeking a “friends with benefits” arrangement. A special agent with Utah’s Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce responded, posing as “Cassidy,” a 13-year-old girl. The agent quickly informed Buranek of Cassidy’s age. Buranek initially expressed some hesitation, acknowledging the “age gap” and stating he was “not a creep.” However, the conversation soon moved to a messaging app, where Buranek initiated sexually explicit comments, calling Cassidy “very hot” and “very cute,” and asking about her intentions for the night.
Over the course of a single night, the conversation escalated. Buranek showed interest in a sexual encounter despite multiple reminders that “Cassidy” was 13 and inexperienced. He discussed “making out,” “pleasing” her, and having sex. The agent provided opportunities for Buranek to disengage, but he continued to pursue the encounter, eventually driving 40 minutes to meet her at a park. Upon arrival, Buranek was arrested and charged with enticing a minor. He argued entrapment, claiming the State failed to prove he was not entrapped. The trial court denied his motion for a directed verdict, and a jury found him guilty. Buranek appealed this denial.
Legal Issue(s): The primary legal question was whether the trial court was correct in denying Luke Buranek’s motion for a directed verdict on the grounds of entrapment. This required determining if the undercover agent’s actions went beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit the offense and instead created a substantial risk that Buranek would commit the crime even if he was not otherwise inclined to do so.
Holding: The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed Buranek’s conviction for enticing a minor. The court found that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Buranek had not been entrapped. The court highlighted that Buranek needed very little inducement before he began engaging in sexually explicit conversation with someone he believed to be a 13-year-old girl and arranged to meet for a sexual encounter. He was the first to express sexual interest after learning Cassidy’s age, and he readily responded to sexual messages. The entire interaction leading to the attempted meet-up occurred within a single night, and Buranek had multiple opportunities to withdraw but chose not to.
Why It Matters: This decision clarifies and reinforces Utah’s objective standard for the entrapment defense, which focuses on the conduct of the government agent. It emphasizes that simply providing an opportunity to commit a crime does not constitute entrapment, even if an undercover agent initiates contact or asks questions that lead to an illegal act. The court’s ruling underscores that a defendant’s own actions, such as actively pursuing criminal conduct despite opportunities to withdraw, are crucial in evaluating an entrapment claim. This case is particularly relevant for those involved in or accused of sexual offenses stemming from online interactions with undercover law enforcement. It demonstrates that even initial hesitation, if followed by eager and ready participation in the illicit activity, will likely not be sufficient to establish an entrapment defense.
Takeaway for Defendants: If you are facing criminal charges, especially related to sexual offenses or interactions with law enforcement online, the defense of entrapment is complex and difficult to prove. This case illustrates that merely being presented with an opportunity to commit a crime by law enforcement is typically not enough for a successful entrapment defense. The court will examine your level of willingness and whether you actively pursued the crime despite chances to stop. Understanding the nuances of such defenses requires experienced legal counsel. If you find yourself in a similar situation, it is vital to consult with a criminal defense attorney immediately to assess the specifics of your case and explore all available legal strategies.