PATRICK J. BROKER, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a methamphetamine trafficking conviction because the trial court erred in refusing to give a special jury instruction clarifying the State's burden of proof on the entrapment defense.
A trial court errs by refusing to give a special jury instruction on entrapment that clarifies the State's burden of proof, and such error cannot be deemed harmless.
[1] A trial court must give a special jury instruction on entrapment that clearly explains the State's burden of proof when requested by the defendant, and refusal to do so c…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatrick Broker was convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine. At trial, Broker requested a special jury instruction explaining the State's burden of…
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 Special Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Patrick J. Broker appeals his judgment and sentence for trafficking in methamphetamine. He argues that the trial court erred when it failed to give a special instruction explaining the burdens of proof on the issue of entrapment. The trial court chose to give the standard instruction on entrapment despite the defendant’s argument that Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla.1993), required an instruction more clearly explaining the State’s burden on this issue. See also State v. Howell, 629 So. 2d 213, 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (explaining the shifting burden of proof for use in entrapment cases). After this trial, the supreme court revised the standard instruction on entrapment. See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S407, 415, 723 So. 2d 123, 142 (Fla.1998). See also Vazquez v. State, 700 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), appeal dismissed, State v. Vazquez, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S428, 718 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1998) (dismissing certified issue on nondispositive issue).
Although we understand the trial court’s decision to use the published standard instruction, we conclude that it was error to deny the defendant’s special requested instruction, which was similar to the current standard instruction. We cannot hold that this error was harmless. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, C.J., and ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Zackery Holiday v. State, 753 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2000)…urts considered the propriety of this pre-modified instruction and concluded that, considering Munoz, such instruction did not accurately reflect the current status of Florida law on entrapment. See, e.g., Vazquez, 700 So. 2d at 13; Broker v. State, 726 So. 2d 307, 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Recognizing the inaccuracy of the pre-modified standard instruction on entrapment, the First District in the decision below and the Fourth District in Miller proceeded to address whether, after Munoz, giving such instruction…
-
Darrin L. Bledsoe v. State, 764 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…he “pipeline rule” that “[disposition of a case on appeal ‘should be made in accord with the law in effect at the time of the appellate court’s decision rather than the law in effect at the time the judgment appealed was rendered.’ ” Nolte v. State, 726 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (quoting Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467, 468 (Fla.1978)). Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Bled-soe’s burglary conviction. Pursuant to section 924.34, Florida Statutes (1999), and the Florida Supreme Court…
-
Cortney Cornarus Pressley v. State, 73 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…der the Youthful Offender Act is not unbridled.” McKinney v. State, 27 So. 3d 160, 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). The trial court may, after reviewing the criteria, decline to sentence a statutorily qualified person as a youthful offender. Nolte v. State, 726 So. 2d 307, 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). But, “[l]ike any other exercise of judicial discretion, the trial court’s sentencing decision must be supported by logic and reason and must not be based upon the whim or caprice of the judge.” McKinney, 27 So. 3d at 161. Mo…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993)
- STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIM. CASES (97-2), 723 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1998)
- Vazquez v. State, 700 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- State v. Vazquez, 718 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Howell, 629 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)