REINALDO ACOSTA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Reinaldo Acosta was convicted of trafficking in controlled substances after being induced into a drug deal through a chain of intermediaries connected to a paid police informant. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that he lacked standing to assert entrapment or outrageous government conduct defenses because he was three steps removed from the government misconduct and was not a direct target of the sting operation.
A defendant lacking direct knowledge of or involvement in government inducement activities, and who is not a direct target of a sting operation, cannot assert a vicarious entrapment or outrageous government conduct defense, particularly when separated from the government agent's misconduct by multiple intermediaries.
[1] Entrapment is inapplicable where inducement comes from a private citizen who is not a government agent.
[2] A defendant cannot claim outrageous government conduct as a defense when they are three steps removed from the alleged misconduct and were neither the target of the opera…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 conduct of law enforcement agents [was] so outrageous that due process principles ... absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction”
The broader legal principle Acosta invoked as an alternative to entrapment, citing United States v. Russell
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was induced into a drug deal as a 'runner' by Armando Acosta, who was brought into the transaction by Santos, who was enticed to set up the …
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 Due Process Principles cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Appellant was induced into a drug deal as a “runner” by a seller named Armando Acosta, who was brought into the transac tion by a man named Santos, who was enticed to set up the deal in exchange for sexual favors offered by Yolanda Padrón, a paid police informant. Appellant acknowledges a lack of standing to raise an entrapment defense. See Sarno v. State, 424 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 434 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1983); see also State v. Perez, 438 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (entrapment inapplicable where inducement comes from a private citizen who is not a government agent).
He seeks reversal of a conviction for trafficking in controlled substances relying on the broader principle that “the conduct of law enforcement agents [was] so outrageous that due process principles ... absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 1643, 36 L.Ed.2d 366, 373 (1973).
See United States v. Twigg, 588 F. 2d 373 (3d Cir.1978); State v. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1985).
No case has applied a theory of vicarious entrapment or outrageous conduct of law enforcement agents to exonerate a defendant who is three steps removed from the government misconduct or who is neither a target of the government’s sting operation nor is present during, or knowledgeable of, the informant’s inducement activities. Cf. United States v. Valencia, 645 F. 2d 1158, 1168-69 (2d Cir.1980) (vicarious entrapment defense available only where the defendant first introduces admissible evidence that the government agent’s inducement was communicated to him by another). The facts of this case do not compel a reversal of the conviction.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1973)
- State v. Boyce E. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1985)
- United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Valencia, 645 F.2d 1158 (2d Cir. 1980)
- State v. Perez, 438 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Leal v. State, 424 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)