JOHNNY MORALES, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The Florida appellate court reversed Johnny Morales's conviction for dealing in stolen property, finding that an undercover police sting operation constituted objective entrapment because the police failed to establish that Morales was engaged in specific ongoing criminal activity before initiating the scheme.
The conviction should be reversed because the state failed to prove the first prong of the objective entrapment test—that the police sought to interrupt a specific ongoing criminal activity. The hearsay statements about Morales's alleged criminal history were inadmissible and could not establish reasonable suspicion of his involvement in criminal activity.
[1] Entrapment requires proof that police sought to interrupt specific ongoing criminal activity and used means reasonably tailored to apprehend those involved.
[2] Statements from an acquaintance and a vendor, constituting inadmissible hearsay, cannot establish reasonable suspicion of a defendant's involvement in criminal activity f…
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the objective entrapment test and identifies that the state's failure on the first prong mandates reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDetective Garafalo, posing as a vending machine company agent, befriended Morales and installed video games and a music box at a lounge where Morales …
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 Inadmissible Hearsay cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for dealing in stolen property. He argues that his conviction should be reversed based on an objective entrapment defense. We agree and reverse.
When an undercover sting operation to infiltrate organized crime in Hillsborough County proved to be unsuccessful, the authorities in charge directed officers to attempt to sell stolen beer to individuals in the area. Detective Garafalo introduced himself to the appellant, representing himself as an agent of a vending machine company. Over the ensuing months, Ga-rafalo negotiated with the appellant and a person who had an interest in various lounges. Garafalo installed a music box and two video games at one of the lounges and made collections on a weekly basis. During one visit, he approached the appellant to sell him stolen beer. Prior to that time, Garafalo had spoken with the appellant only about vending machines and had no information relating the appellant to criminal activity, other than what an acquaintance of the appellant and a video vendor had told him.
Garafalo testified, over objection, that the acquaintance had told him the appellant was a thief. Garafalo also testified, again over objection, that the vendor told him the appellant was known to have broken into games to retrieve money. Garafalo sold the appellant beer on three occasions. The appellant was charged and convicted of dealing in stolen property.
A two-prong test determines whether entrapment has occurred. Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla.), cert, denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985); see State v. Hunter⅛ 586 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla. 1991). The first prong asks whether the police sought to interrupt a specific ongoing criminal activity. The second prong asks whether the police used means reasonably tailored to apprehend those involved in the criminal activity. In this case, the state failed to prove the first prong of Cruz.
There was no evidence that the appellant was involved in a specific ongoing criminal activity before the police initiated the scheme to sell stolen beer to him. The statements of the acquaintance and the video game vendor are inadmissible hearsay and cannot be used to establish a reasonable suspicion of the appellant’s involvement in criminal activity. Bauer v. State, 528 So. 2d 6, 9 (Fla.2d DCA), cause dismissed, 531 So. 2d 1355 (Fla.1988).
We therefore reverse the appellant’s judgment and sentence for dealing in stolen property.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Morales, 630 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1993)…PER CURIAM. We grant the petition for review of Morales v. State, 594 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), but dispense with the filing of briefs on the merits and oral argument. We quash Morales and remand for reconsideration in light of Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla.1993). It is so ordered. BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDon…
-
Morales v. State, 646 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…PATTERSON, Judge. On remand from the supreme court, see State v. Morales, 630 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1993), we reconsider our prior decision in Morales v. State, 594 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In Morales, we applied the objective entrapment standard enounced in Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985), and held that Morales had been entrapped as a matter of…
Authorities Cited
- Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Hunter, 586 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1991)
- Wilson v. Florida, 473 U.S. 905 (U.S. 1985)
- Christoffersen et ux. v. United States, 473 U.S. 905 (U.S. 1985)
- State v. Emil Gatto, 528 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)