STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD EUGENE ISAAC, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State appeals the dismissal of trafficking in stolen fruit charges based on an entrapment defense. The court reverses, holding that the trial court erred in finding entrapment as a matter of law when issues of the defendant's predisposition remained for jury determination.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that entrapment was not established as a matter of law because jury questions remained regarding the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime, including his prior criminal activity and ready acquiescence in the alleged offense.
[1] Entrapment is a defense that focuses on the intent or predisposition of the defendant to commit a crime.
[2] To establish predisposition for entrapment, the state may show prior criminal activity, reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity, or the defendant's ready…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The defense of entrapment "focuses upon the intent or predisposition of the defendant to commit a crime."”
Establishes the fundamental legal standard that entrapment turns on the defendant's predisposition rather than the government's conduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, a licensed fruit dealer, was contacted by Polk County Sheriff's officers during an undercover sting operation designed to catch fruit d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Entrapment As A Matter Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
The state appeals an order which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) on the ground that defendant was entrapped as a matter of law. We reverse.
Defendant, a licensed fruit dealer, came into contact with officers of the Polk County Sheriff’s Department during an undercover “sting-type” operation. The scenario, according to the officer in charge, “would be to obtain fruit, represent that fruit as stolen property, utilizing undercover agents who could visit the different licensed fruit dealers around the country without proper documentation of the fruit, and to attempt to sell the fruit as stolen property to these dealers.”
As a result of this operation, defendant was charged with trafficking in stolen fruit after defendant allegedly effectuated a sale of “stolen” fruit by two undercover officers to a Polk County fruit company. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, adjudging that the conduct of the officers constituted entrapment as a matter of law.
The defense of entrapment “focuses upon the intent or predisposition of the defendant to commit a crime.... ” State v. Brider, 386 So. 2d 818, 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
[W]here the defense of entrapment is raised, the state must show predisposition by the defendant to commit the crime. This the state may do by establishing:
1. Prior criminal activity by the defendant; or
2. Reasonable suspicion of his involvement in such activity; or
3. His ready acquiescence in the commission of the crime.
State v. Sokos, 426 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See Story v. State, 355 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Under circumstances of the type involved here, a jury question was presented not only as to defendant’s ready acquiescence in the commission of a crime, but also as to his alleged prior criminal activity. Thus, the trial court should not have found entrapment as a matter of law. See State v. Cruz, 426 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Sokos, supra.
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent herewith.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Perez, 438 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…conviction and punishment. See Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976); United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973); State v. Dickinson, 370 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1979); State v. Isaac, 436 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Cruz, 426 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Brider, 386 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980). . Ordonez, the other co-defendant and co-respondent here, was arrested when Perez, under…
-
Goldstein v. State, 435 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…to have taken the money from Hogue’s pocket. We reject appellant’s argument that these facts showed entrapment as a matter of law. State v. Sokos, 426 So. 2d 1044 (Fla.2d DCA 1983); State v. Cruz, 426 So. 2d 1308 (Fla.2d DCA 1983); State v. Issac, 436 So. 2d 189 (Fla.2d DCA 1983). We acknowledge that our holding here is in direct conflict with State v. Casper, 417 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We remand, however, for correction of appellant’s sentence. The sentence provides that appellant is to be given…
-
Eusebio Costa v. State, 445 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Isaac, 436 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Jordan v. State, 419 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Way v. State, 418 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Asmer v. State, 416 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); De La Cova v. State, 355 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Amato v. State, 2…
Authorities Cited
- Story v. State, 355 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- State v. Brider, 386 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- State v. Demetrios Sokos, 426 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- State v. Cruz, 426 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)