PAUL SYKES, 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.
In this direct criminal appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a drug conviction because the trial judge improperly excluded evidence of the defendant's lack of prior criminal record in support of his entrapment defense. The court held that evidence of the absence of a criminal history is logically relevant to rebut the prosecution's evidence of predisposition to commit crimes.
Evidence of the absence of a prior criminal history is admissible and relevant to the question of whether an accused was predisposed to commit a crime in an entrapment defense. If prior criminal history is admissible to show predisposition, logically the absence of such history is equally admissible to negate predisposition.
[1] Evidence of an accused's lack of a prior criminal record is admissible to demonstrate a lack of predisposition in support of an entrapment defense.
[2] A trial court commits prejudicial error by precluding a defendant from presenting evidence of their lack of a criminal record when asserting an entrapment defense.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“he was therefore required to make an evidentiary showing that he was induced by the informant to commit the crimes and that he was not predisposed to commit the crimes”
Establishes the two-part test for entrapment defense requiring proof of inducement and lack of predisposition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSykes was charged with drug offenses and raised an entrapment defense at trial, claiming he was induced by a police informant to commit the crimes. To…
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 Entrapment Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, J.
The appellant in this direct criminal appeal challenges his convictions for drug offenses. We reverse the convictions and remand this case for a new trial because the trial judge committed prejudicial error in precluding the appellant from presenting evidence of his lack of a criminal record in support of his entrapment defense. The appellant’s defense at trial was that he had been entrapped by a police informant. He was therefore required to make an evidentiary showing that he was induced by the informant to commit the crimes and that he was not predisposed to commit the crimes. See Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90, 99 (Fla.1993). As evidence of his lack of predisposition, the appellant attempted to testify that he had no prior criminal record, but the trial judge sustained a prosecution objection to the testimony. In doing so, the trial judge erred.
The supreme court recognized m Munoz that in responding to an entrapment defense the prosecution may offer evidence of an accused’s prior criminal history to demonstrate the accused’s predisposition to commit the crime, even though such evidence would normally be inadmissible. If evidence of prior criminal history is admissible as relevant evidence going to the question of whether an accused is predisposed to commit a crime, it is only reasonable and logical that evidence of the absence of a prior criminal history is likewise relevant to the question and also admissible. And courts in other jurisdictions have reached this same conclusion. See, e.g., U.S. v. Thomas, 134 F. 3d 975 (9th Cir.1998); People v. Dobrino, 227 Ill. App.3d 920, 169 Ill.Dec. 904, 592 N.E. 2d 391 (1992).
Because the error in this case satisfies the prejudicial error threshold of section 924.051(7), Florida Statutes, the appellant’s convictions are reversed and this case is remanded for a new trial.
JOANOS and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivera v. State, 180 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…With respect to predisposition, the lack of a prior criminal record is relevant, and evidence of lack of a criminal record is admissible to support an entrapment defense. See Oyler v. State, 162 So. 3d 200, 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Sykes v. State, 739 So. 2d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). In Sykes, the court determined that the error was prejudicial and reversed and remanded for a new trial when the trial court prohibited the defendant from introducing evidence of lack of a criminal record to support his ent…
-
Oyler v. State, 162 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…rgan v. State, 112 So. 3d 122, 125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), is indistinguishable on this point.2 As a corollary to this point, the trial court also erred in precluding Appellant from offering evidence that he had never been arrested. See Sykes v. State, 739 So. 2d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (evidence of lack of prior criminal history relevant to entrapment defense). REVERSED AND REMANDED. PLEUS, R.J., Senior Judge, and SWANSON, R., Associate Judge, concur. TORPY, C.J., concurs and concurs specially. . The S…
Authorities Cited
- Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993)