WILLIAM EARL THOMAS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1989-08-04
No. 88-2637
SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
547 So. 2d 989 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of sale and possession of cannabis. He argued the trial court should have instructed the jury on entrapment.…

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.

Topics
Possession Of Cannabis Entrapment Defense Jury Instructions

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Possession Of Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

Appellant, William Earl Thomas, appeals a judgment finding him guilty of both sale and possession of cannabis, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment and that his conviction for both offenses violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. We reverse and remand for new trial on the basis of Thomas’ first argument.

An instruction on a particular defense should be given to the jury where there is any evidence to support that defense. Smith v. State, 424 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1982); Pope v. State, 458 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). As this court stated in Terwilliger v. State, 535 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988):

Once the defendant has shown some evidence which suggests the possibility of entrapment, the issue of entrapment must be submitted to the jury with the appropriate instruction_ It is not necessary that the defendant convince the trial court of the merits of the entrapment defense because the trial judge may not weigh the evidence before him in determining whether the instruction is appropriate; it is enough if the defense is suggested by the evidence presented.

535 So. 2d at 347 (emphasis in original). Although the trial court, this court, or the jury may disagree as to whether the evidence ultimately proves entrapment, the evidence presented at trial in the instant case at least “suggests the possibility of entrapment” sufficient for an instruction to be given to the jury, as provided in Terwilliger, supra. We therefore reverse and remand for new trial based on the trial court’s failure to give the requested entrapment instruction. Because we reverse on this ground, we find it unnecessary to address appellant’s double jeopardy issue. REVERSED and REMANDED.

SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Petruschke v. State, 125 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
    …ate to avoid these types of improper arguments on retrial. Double Jeopardy Because we are reversing appellant’s convictions and remanding for a new trial, [*281] we need not address appellant’s double jeopardy argument. See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 547 So. 2d 989, 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (finding it unnecessary to address double jeopardy claim where defendant’s convictions were reversed on another ground and case was remanded for a new trial). We find it appropriate, however, to address the evidentiary issue…
  • Davis v. State, 937 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
    …tion. Evans v. State, 831 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). And, if some evidence has been presented at trial that suggests the possibility of entrapment, a defendant has the right to have the jury instructed on the law of entrapment. Thomas v. State, 547 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). It is not necessary to convince the trial judge of the merits of the entrapment defense because the judge may not reweigh the evidence to determine if the instruction is appropriate. It is enough if the entrapment defense is sug…
  • Chavers v. State, 901 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
    …In deciding whether to give a requested charge, a “ ‘trial judge may not weigh the evidence before him in determining whether the instruction is appropriate; it is enough if the defense is suggested by the evidence presented.’” See Thomas v. State, 547 So. 2d 989, 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (quoting Terwilliger v. State, 535 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)). Accord Goode, 856 So. 2d at 1104; Pope v. State, 458 So. 2d 327, 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (“The evidence need not be ‘convincing to the trial court,’ be…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw