STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STEVEN LARRY DROLET, APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT
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 appellate court reversed convictions for cocaine trafficking and firearm possession, finding that evidence of subsequent criminal acts was improperly admitted to show predisposition and defeat an entrapment defense. The court also reversed a conspiracy conviction, finding it could have been influenced by the erroneously admitted evidence.
No, evidence of subsequent criminal acts is not relevant to prove predisposition to commit the charged crimes. Its admission was presumptively harmful error.
[1] Evidence of criminal acts committed subsequent to the acts charged is not relevant to prove predisposition to commit those crimes for the purpose of defeating an entrapme…
[2] The erroneous admission of irrelevant evidence is presumptively harmful error.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Evidence of acts approximately six months subsequent to the time of the charged crimes was not relevant to prove predisposition to commit those crimes.”
Establishes the core reasoning for reversing the trafficking and firearm convictions.
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 was convicted of cocaine trafficking, firearm possession, and conspiracy to traffic. He argued that evidence of criminal acts occurring …
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 Predisposition To Commit Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.
Defendant cross-appeals from his convictions and sentences for trafficking in cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He contends that the trial court erred in admitting, for the purpose of showing defendant’s predisposition to commit the crimes charged and thus to defeat his defense of entrapment, evidence of criminal acts committed subsequent to the acts for which he was charged. We agree with that contention and reverse. Evidence of acts approximately six months subsequent to the time of the charged crimes was not relevant to prove predisposition to commit those crimes. See Bauer v. State, 528 So. 2d 6, 8 (Pla. 2d DCA 1988). No other relevancy of that evidence is specifically argued by the state, or appears to us, to have existed. The evidence was irrelevant, and therefore its admission into evidence was presumptively harmful error. See Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903, 908 (Fla.1981). We cannot conclude that the erroneous admission of that evidence did not contribute to the convictions. See DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). The convictions for trafficking in cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony are therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial as to those crimes.
Defendant also cross-appeals from his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. We are not convinced that there was not sufficient evidence of a conspiracy existent with an alleged co-conspirator before the alleged co-conspirator became a government agent. Compare Edwards v. State, 516 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Nonetheless, we cannot conclude that the jury was not improperly influenced by the above described erroneously admitted evidence. The conviction for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial as to that crime.
The state’s contention on appeal is moot.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
THREADGILL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delgado v. State, 573 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…ce “is presumed harmful error because of the danger that a jury will take the bad character or propensity to crime thus demonstrated as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.” Accord Castro v. State, 547 So. 2d 111, 115 (Fla.1989); State v. Drolet, 549 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The test for harmless error is whether an appellate court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986). Based on our review of this record we can…
-
Kent v. State, 704 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…se authorities that subsequent-crime evidence may be relevant and therefore admissible in federal courts to show predisposition in rebuttal of an entrapment defense. The rule is no different in Florida. While the defendant relies on State v. Drolet, 549 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), the only state opinion addressing the issue, we find that case to be distinguishable. In Drolet, the Second District held that “[e]vi-dence of acts approximately six months subsequent to the time of the charged crimes was not rel…
-
Corbett v. State, 113 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…der the evidence relevant. See Kent v. State, 704 So. 2d 121, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“[T]he admissibility of subsequent acts depends heavily on its probative value and prejudicial effect, which the trial court must balance.”); cf. State v. Drolet, 549 So. 2d 1172, 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (“Evidence of acts approximately six months subsequent to the time of the charged crimes was not relevant to prove predisposition to commit those crimes.”). Corbett claims that the similar fact evidence was not relevant to p…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981)
- Wilmon Edwards, Jr. v. State, 516 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- State v. Emil Gatto, 528 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)