State v. Buranek

2025 UT App 92

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee,
v.
LUKE MARTIN BURANEK,
Appellant.

Opinion
No. 20230969-CA
Filed June 20, 2025

Second District Court, Ogden Department
The Honorable Craig Hall
The Honorable Rita M. Cornish
No. 221901265

Rachel Phillips Ainscough and Jessica Hyde Holzer,
Attorneys for Appellant
Derek E. Brown and Alexandra Herlong,
Attorneys for Appellee

JUDGE GREGORY K. ORME authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES RYAN M. HARRIS and JOHN D. LUTHY concurred.

ORME, Judge:

¶1 Over the course of one night, Luke Martin Buranek
engaged in a sexually explicit online conversation and ultimately
tried to meet up to have sex with a “13-year old girl” who turned
out to be an undercover special agent. A jury subsequently
convicted him of enticing a minor. Buranek now challenges his
conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his
motion for a directed verdict on the ground that the State had
failed to prove that he was not entrapped. We affirm his
conviction.
State v. Buranek

BACKGROUND 1

¶2 In May 2022, having recently broken up with his girlfriend,
Buranek posted an ad on a dating and personals website. The
website required its users to be 18 years or older. Buranek’s listing
specified that he, a 19-year-old male, was seeking a “fwb
situation” 2 and “connections” with women aged 18 to 35. The ad
also included a picture of Buranek with blue hair.

¶3 The ad caught the attention of a special agent (Agent) for
Utah’s Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce. Posing as a
girl named Cassidy, 3 Agent responded to Buranek, leading to the
following email exchange:

Cassidy: I love the hair. You look like just my type.
we should hang out

Buranek: I’m willing. if I may ask what do you look
like?

Cassidy: I can send you a pic. I am a little young tho.
I hope that is ok.

Agent then sent Buranek a photo of a girl whom Agent believed
appeared to be around 13 years old but which was actually a
photo of a legal secretary in Agent’s office—sent with her

1. “On appeal, we recite the facts from the record in the light most
favorable to the jury’s verdict and present conflicting evidence
only as necessary to understand issues raised on appeal.” State v.
Brown, 2025 UT App 31, n.1, 566 P.3d 737 (quotation simplified).

2. As explained at trial, the abbreviation “fwb” stands for “‘friends
with benefits,’ which is a no-strings attached relationship.”

3. In this opinion, we sometimes refer to Agent by his undercover
persona, “Cassidy.”

20230969-CA 2 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

consent—that was taken when she was between 15 and 17 years
old.

¶4 The email exchange then continued:

Buranek: What age are you?

Buranek: I’m 19

Cassidy: I am 13

Cassidy: 19 is a great age for me. Mature yet
understanding :)

Buranek: I mean you’re cute. but that age gap is real.
I’m not a creep. what are you looking for exactly on
here?

Cassidy: looking to hang out. play video games and
just chill. I am home alone and bored.

Buranek then asked whether Cassidy was on a certain messaging
app, and the two exchanged a few more emails coordinating the
switch to that other platform. Cassidy also sent Buranek two more
photos that she said were of herself.

¶5 Once they had connected on the messaging app, Buranek
sent a photo of himself, and their conversation continued:

Buranek: You’re very hot. You’re very cute.
Whatchu got in mind tonight?

Cassidy: Play some video games. See where the
night leads. What about you?

Buranek: What games do you play? Where do you
want the night to lead lmao

20230969-CA 3 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

Cassidy: I just got Elden Ring.

Buranek: Elden Ring is very fun. Extremely hard
tho. I’m almost at the ending.

Cassidy: Really. I need lots of help in it!! Where do
you hope things lead to. I’m shy. You tell me first :)

Buranek: I’m pretty shy too so don’t be worried, but
we could make out at first and then it could lead
where ever but I’m not gonna push any boundaries,
I’m not a dick and I try to be a sweet guy so as far as
you wanna take it ;) But no pressure ok

Cassidy: No pressure at all ;). That all sounds
amazing. If I was willing. Where would you want it
to lead too?

Buranek: How experienced are you? Like the
furthest you’ve been?

Cassidy: I’ve only ever kissed a guy. It would be
cool to have someone who has done stuff before
lead me

Buranek: I could help but only if your alright with
that. I don’t wanna make you feel uncomfortable.
I’d be gentle and sweet tho I assure you

Cassidy: I would be alright with it. What would you
show me how to do?! It helps me Prepare. I’m shy,
but love to hear what others have to say ;)

Buranek: I can show you the confidence you wanna
show, how to transition into something like that. Or
I could give you pleaser, so you know what it’s like.
I could help show you between a good guy and a

20230969-CA 4 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

bad at it. I could show you the ropes. But I don’t
wanna do that if that’s not what your looking for yk

Cassidy: That sounds so amazing. I would love that.
You should come see me!

Buranek: I think I’m free.

¶6 Cassidy then asked Buranek to expand on “what kind of
pleasure you can show me,” to which he replied that he “could
tease,” “finger,” or “please” her in whatever manner she felt
“comfortable,” and he assured her that he was not a “jerk.”
Cassidy then asked whether they “[c]ould go further” if she
wanted and stated that Buranek seemed “so sweet and caring.”
Buranek answered, “Of course. Only if you want to.” He also told
her that he was “bigger than average.” Cassidy then asked, “What
would that be like. What would you do to me. Bigger than
average?! Can I see?!” This prompted discussion of possibly
exchanging nude photos, but they ultimately decided against it.

¶7 Their conversation then continued:

Cassidy: Maybe just tell me what going further than
fingering and teasing would be like. I would love
that.

Buranek: . . . . I love to please, I’d kiss your neck.
Until you’re ready.

Cassidy: Then?!

Buranek: Then we could do it however feels best for
you. And it could be a learning experience for you

Cassidy: Like do it as in you’d wanna have sex with
me :)

20230969-CA 5 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

Buranek: If that’s what you want ;) But I could eat
you out. How ever you want to enjoy me ;)

Cassidy: I would love all that. If you still want to
come and make a 13 year olds day I’d love to see
you as soon as you could come. If not I totally get it.

Buranek: I want to.

¶8 Buranek next wanted “reassurance that you are you” and
asked Cassidy for more photos of her. Cassidy replied that she did
not “feel comfortable sending any more” photos, but Buranek
tried to convince her to do so anyway. After some back and forth,
Cassidy suggested that they meet at a park near her house to ease
his concerns and indicated that they could then go to her house if
he wished. Buranek replied, “Sure. I’m game. Lemme take a
shower real quick.” When Buranek returned to the conversation
after showering, he and Cassidy proceeded to coordinate meeting
at the park.

¶9 After Buranek estimated that he could be there by 8:30
p.m., Cassidy clarified, “I just want to make sure your cool coming
and meeting up with me to have sex and show me my first time”
and asked, “You’re still ok with meeting me even though I’m 13
and inexperienced at sex?” Buranek answered, “It’s ok, I told you
I’m not gonna judge. Just show you the ropes a little.” Following
additional coordination about their meet-up, which included
Cassidy telling Buranek that her mother was out of town for the
night and Buranek sending Cassidy a picture of his truck, Buranek
left and drove some 40 minutes to meet her at the park.

¶10 Law enforcement officers arrested Buranek soon after his
arrival at the park. He was charged with one count of enticing a
minor, a second-degree felony. Buranek moved to have the charge
dismissed on entrapment grounds. Following an evidentiary
hearing, the trial court concluded that Agent’s conduct did not
constitute entrapment as a matter of law and denied the motion.

20230969-CA 6 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

¶11 The case then proceeded to a two-day jury trial. 4 Agent was
the only witness to testify for the State. Agent testified that he
chose to respond to Buranek’s ad because Buranek’s “hair was
something [Agent] could bring up in a conversation to chat with
him about” and because the listing appeared to be “more sexual
in nature.” Agent stated that it is best practice for agents to state
their undercover persona’s age early in the conversation to not
waste time with individuals who “cut bait and leave” after
learning they are supposedly conversing with a minor. He
indicated that it is also best practice to allow the other person to
be the first to bring up sexual acts. Agent then testified about
Cassidy’s communications with Buranek, and the messages they
exchanged were introduced into evidence.

¶12 Following Agent’s testimony and the close of the State’s
evidence, Buranek moved for a directed verdict. He argued that
the State had not met its burden of establishing that he was not
entrapped. He noted that the website on which he posted his ad
was “an adults only site,” that the ad did not indicate that he
sought to engage in “any sort of illegal activity,” that Agent was
the one to initiate contact with him, and that Agent engaged in
“very persistent questioning” after Agent “had suggested sex.”
The State responded that entrapment had already “been litigated
heavily prior to trial.” The State also argued that entrapment
focuses on the officer’s actions and stated, “[T]he only evidence
that we have right now up to this point is that [Agent] followed
best practices in this conversation.” The State further noted that
Buranek had been repeatedly reminded that Cassidy was 13 years
old, but he nonetheless discussed sexual acts with her.

4. Judge Craig Hall was assigned this case and presided over the
pre-trial proceedings and the subsequent sentencing hearing. But
because Judge Hall fell ill on the morning of trial, Judge Rita M.
Cornish presided over the trial in his stead and ruled on Buranek’s
motion for a directed verdict, which is at issue in this appeal.

20230969-CA 7 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

¶13 After commenting that “this is one of the closer cases,” the
trial court concluded that the State had presented sufficient
evidence upon which a jury might reasonably base a finding that
Buranek was not entrapped. The court stated that although there
was “some emotional component to the conversation,” an
emotional plea “has to be . . . pretty significant” to amount to
entrapment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court denied the
motion for a directed verdict.

¶14 In presenting his case, Buranek again raised entrapment as
a defense. He called an expert witness, a former assistant U.S.
Attorney and FBI agent, who opined, among other things, that
Agent’s methodology was flawed because Agent had not
established a predisposition by Buranek to commit sexual crimes
against minors prior to responding to his ad. The expert witness
also stated that, in his estimation, the person pictured in the
photographs Agent sent Buranek “doesn’t look 13,” and he
opined that Agent “ramp[ed]” up the conversation on several
occasions when the discussion turned to sex.

¶15 The jury found Buranek guilty of enticing a minor. He
appeals.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶16 Buranek challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for
a directed verdict.5 “We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion
for directed verdict for correctness.” State v. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10,
¶ 21, 345 P.3d 1168. “A defendant has a substantial burden on
appeal to show that the trial court erred in denying a motion for
directed verdict.” State v. Stricklan, 2020 UT 65, ¶ 30, 477 P.3d 1251
(quotation simplified). Accordingly, “we will uphold a denial of
the motion for directed verdict based on an insufficiency of the

5. Buranek does not appeal the trial court’s earlier denial of his
motion to dismiss on entrapment grounds.

20230969-CA 8 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

evidence claim, if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
State, some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could
find that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation simplified). Conversely, we will
reverse the denial of a motion for directed verdict if, “when
viewed in the light most favorable to the State, no evidence
existed from which a reasonable jury could find beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.” Id.
(quotation simplified).

ANALYSIS

¶17 “The government is not permitted to engage in the
manufacture of crime.” State v. Taylor, 599 P.2d 496, 500 (Utah
1979). To that end, the Utah Code provides that the affirmative
defense of entrapment is established

when a peace officer or a person directed by or
acting in cooperation with the officer induces the
commission of an offense in order to obtain
evidence of the commission for prosecution by
methods creating a substantial risk that the offense
would be committed by one not otherwise ready to
commit it.

Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-303(1) (LexisNexis 2017). “Conduct merely
affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not
constitute entrapment.” Id.

¶18 This statutory language expressly “incorporates an
objective standard,” State v. Hatchett, 2020 UT App 61, ¶ 11, 462
P.3d 1288 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 470 P.3d 444 (Utah
2020), that “focuses on the conduct of the government agent, and
whether that conduct included persuasion or inducement which
would be effective to persuade an average person to commit the
crime in question,” State v. Smith, 2024 UT 13, ¶ 36, 548 P.3d 874

20230969-CA 9 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

(quotation simplified). Nevertheless, although “the statutory test
mainly examines the conduct of law enforcement, the defendant’s
responses to that conduct can be relevant to that inquiry.” Id. ¶ 37.
Accordingly, “the transactions leading up to the offense, the
interaction between the agent and the defendant, and the
response to the inducements of the agent, are all to be considered
in judging what the effect of the governmental agent’s conduct
would be on a normal person.” Id. (quotation simplified).

¶19 Most incidents of entrapment fall within two categories. Id.
¶ 38 & n.63. “The first category involves improper police conduct
in which the government agent applied persistent pressure or
persistently pursued the defendant to commit the crime.” Id. ¶ 38
(quotation simplified). Our Supreme Court has found this
category of entrapment in cases where the defendants gave
noncommittal responses to undercover officers’ requests to
engage in illegal activity, following which the officers repeatedly
contacted the defendants over the next several weeks, each time
raising the subject of illegal activity until the defendants
eventually gave in. Id. (citing State v. Sprague, 680 P.2d 404, 405-06
(Utah 1984); State v. Kourbelas, 621 P.2d 1238, 1238–39 (Utah 1980)).
“The second category involves appeals based primarily on
sympathy, pity, or close personal friendships, or offers of
inordinate sums of money.” Id. ¶ 39 (quotation simplified). Our
Supreme Court has found that this category of entrapment
occurred in a case in which the informant, who had previously
been romantically involved with the defendant, “claimed to be
going through painful withdrawals from heroin addiction, and
pleaded for [the defendant’s] help in finding drugs that would
help alleviate her suffering.” Id. (citing Taylor, 599 P.2d at 503–04).

¶20 On a motion to dismiss, “only when reasonable minds
could not differ can the court find entrapment as a matter of law.”
State v. Dickerson, 2022 UT App 56, ¶ 21, 511 P.3d 1191 (quotation
simplified), cert. denied, 525 P.3d 1259 (Utah 2022). Otherwise, the
court must “allow the issue of entrapment to go to the jury.” Id.

20230969-CA 10 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

(quotation simplified). At trial, as with other affirmative defenses,
once a defendant establishes a reasonable basis in the evidence for
an entrapment defense, the burden shifts to the State to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is without merit. See
State v. Curtis, 542 P.2d 744, 746 (Utah 1975); State v. Campos, 2013
UT App 213, ¶ 41, 309 P.3d 1160, cert. denied, 320 P.3d 676 (Utah
2014); State v. Sellers, 2011 UT App 38, ¶ 15, 248 P.3d 70. See also
Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-502(2)(b) (LexisNexis 2017) (requiring the
State to disprove an affirmative defense). That is, the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the government agent’s
conduct “merely afford[ed]” the defendant an “opportunity to
commit an offense” rather than creating “a substantial risk that
the offense would be committed by one not otherwise ready to
commit it.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-303(1).

¶21 Buranek challenges the denial of his motion for a directed
verdict based on entrapment. In this context, we will affirm the
trial court’s denial of the directed verdict “if, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the State, some evidence exists from which
a reasonable jury could find” beyond a reasonable doubt that
Buranek had not been entrapped. State v. Stricklan, 2020 UT 65,
¶ 30, 477 P.3d 1251 (quotation simplified).

¶22 Buranek argues that the court erred in considering only
whether Agent’s actions fell within the emotional entrapment
category, the second of the two entrapment categories, and not
also whether his actions constituted consistent pressure that
induced him to commit the offense under the first category.
Specifically, he asserts that “Agent’s actions in initiating contact
with [him] via a legal listing and repeatedly pressing [him]—
despite his hesitancy—to provide Agent with sexual details, did
not merely provide [him] an opportunity to commit enticement”
but rather “created a substantial risk that the offense would be
committed by [him] as one not otherwise ready to commit it.” In
support of this argument, Buranek points to the fact that Agent,
posing as 13-year-old Cassidy, answered an ad that sought

20230969-CA 11 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

connection with women aged 18 to 35. He also points to the
following messages Agent sent as constituting persistent
pressure:

• I love the hair. You look like just my type. we should hang
out

• Where do you hope things lead to. I’m shy. You tell me first
:)

• No pressure at all ;). That all sounds amazing. If I was
willing. Where would you want it to lead too?

• I’ve only ever kissed a guy. It would be cool to have
someone who has done stuff before lead me

• I would be alright with it. What would you show me how
to do?! It helps me Prepare. I’m shy, but love to hear what
others have to say ;)

• That sounds so amazing. I would love that. You should
come see me!

• I want to know what kind of pleasure you can show me.

• That all sounds amazing. Could we go further if I wanted
too? You sound so sweet and caring.

• What would that be like. What would you do to me. Bigger
than average?! Can I see?!

• Maybe just tell me what going further than fingering and
teasing would be like. I would love that.

• Then?!

• Like do it as in you’d wanna have sex with me :)

20230969-CA 12 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

¶23 But a “defendant’s reactions to the government
inducement—for example, whether the defendant hesitates when
presented with an illegal opportunity and succumbs only to
persistent pressure or, conversely, whether the defendant actively
pursues the commission of the crime despite opportunities to
withdraw—are highly relevant to the statutory question of
whether the police methods created a substantial risk that the
offense would be committed by one not otherwise ready to
commit it.” Dickerson, 2022 UT App 56, ¶ 34 (quotation
simplified). See State v. Smith, 2024 UT 13, ¶ 37, 548 P.3d 874
(stating that “the response to the inducements of the agent” is a
relevant consideration when “judging what the effect of the
governmental agent’s conduct would be on a normal person”)
(quotation simplified). And upon review of the conversation
between Buranek and Cassidy as a whole, it is readily apparent
that Buranek needed very little inducement before he began
engaging in a sexually explicit conversation with a person whom
he believed to be a 13-year-old girl and whom he ultimately
arranged to meet to have a sexual encounter with.

¶24 Although Cassidy’s first message stated that Buranek
looked “like just [her] type” and suggested that they “should hang
out,” Cassidy also quickly informed Buranek that she was 13.
Buranek first expressed some hesitancy upon learning her age.
After stating that the “age gap is real” and that he was “not a
creep,” he asked what she was “looking for exactly.” Cassidy
answered that she was “looking to hang out,” “play video games
and just chill”—nothing inherently sexual. It was at that point that
Buranek suggested that they continue their conversation on a
messaging app, and in his first message to her on that other
platform, he told her that she was “very hot” and “very cute.” He
also asked, “Whatchu got in mind tonight?” These comments
could be interpreted to signal sexual interest. When Cassidy
noncommittally responded that she planned to play a video game
and “[s]ee where the night leads,” Buranek asked where she
wanted the night to lead. After Cassidy asked him to “tell [her]

20230969-CA 13 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

first,” Buranek answered that they “could make out at first and
then it could lead where ever.” Cassidy then asked, if she was
willing, where he wanted “it to lead.” From there, the
conversation became more explicitly sexual in nature with very
little effort from Agent—effort that certainly fell short of conduct
that would induce one otherwise not ready to commit the offense.
In sum, after Buranek learned Cassidy’s age, he was the first to
express a sexual interest when he called her “very hot,” followed
immediately by the inquiry of what she had “in mind” for the
night. Cassidy said nothing to prompt Buranek to stray from his
initial, rather momentary, hesitancy. And from that point onward,
Buranek readily responded to any messages of a sexual nature
that Cassidy sent.

¶25 Additionally, the culmination of the conversation, i.e.,
Buranek attempting to meet Cassidy for a sexual encounter, all
occurred during the course of a single night—not over the course
of several weeks’ worth of contact as in the cases in which our
Supreme Court has previously concluded that entrapment
occurred as a matter of law. See Smith, 2024 UT 13, ¶ 38 (citing
Sprague, 680 P.2d at 405–06; Kourbelas, 621 P.2d at 1238–39).
Moreover, Agent also gave Buranek several opportunities to
disengage, reminding him more than once that Cassidy was 13
and asking whether he was “cool” “to have sex and show
[Cassidy her] first time” and whether he was “still ok” meeting
with an “inexperienced” 13-year-old to have sex. Buranek also
had the opportunity to withdraw when he left the conversation to
take a shower and during the 40-minute drive to the park to meet
Cassidy. See Dickerson, 2022 UT App 56, ¶ 34 (stating that
“whether the defendant actively pursues the commission of the
crime despite opportunities to withdraw” is “highly relevant” to
the entrapment inquiry).

¶26 All this evidence was sufficient to withstand a motion for
a directed verdict. When viewed in the light most favorable to the
State, the evidence showed that Agent’s conduct did not

20230969-CA 14 2025 UT App 92
State v. Buranek

“include[] persuasion or inducement which would be effective to
persuade an average person” to entice Cassidy to have sex, Smith,
2024 UT 13, ¶ 36 (quotation simplified)—rather, the evidence
showed that Agent “merely afford[ed]” Buranek an “opportunity
to commit [the] offense,” Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-303(1).

CONCLUSION

¶27 The conversation between Buranek and Cassidy was
sufficient evidence to withstand Buranek’s motion for a directed
verdict. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.

20230969-CA 15 2025 UT App 92