DAVID ALLEN WORLEY, 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.
David Allen Worley appeals his conviction for selling MDMA, challenging the trial court's denial of a jury instruction on entrapment. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that entrapment does not apply when inducement comes from a non-agent private citizen rather than a state agent.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the entrapment instruction because entrapment is not available as a defense when inducement comes from a non-agent private citizen rather than a state agent, and the girlfriend occupied that position. Additionally, the facts do not constitute subjective entrapment under Florida law.
[1] A criminal defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support it and the theory is recognized under state law.
[2] The giving or withholding of a requested jury instruction is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.
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“a criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of defense if there is any evidence to support this theory, and so long as the theory is recognized as valid under the law of the state”
Establishes the standard for when a trial court must give a requested jury instruction in criminal cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWorley sold approximately 500 MDMA pills (82.4 grams) to an undercover officer and confidential informant for $5,500. Worley claimed the informant's g…
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 Sale Of Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
David Allen Worley appeals a final order adjudicating him guilty of the sale of a controlled substance. Worley contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on entrapment. We disagree.
The giving or withholding by a trial court of a requested jury instruction is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Palmore v. State, 888 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Pozo v. State, 682 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), rev. denied 691 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1997). In a criminal proceeding the discretion of the trial court in this regard is rather narrow, however, because a criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of defense if there is any evidence to support this theory, and so long as the theory is recognized as valid under the law of the state. See Mora v. State, 814 So. 2d 322 (Fla.2002); Flemmings v. State, 838 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Because Worley’s theory is faulty, we find no error in the court’s decision not to give the entrapment instruction.
Worley sold about 500 pills containing MDMA, aggregating 82.4 grams, to an undercover officer and a confidential informant for $5,500. Worley asserted at trial that the girlfriend of the confidential informant encouraged him to complete the sale by offering to have sex with him. The conversation allegedly took place by phone well in advance of the sale. The girlfriend did not testify. The undercover officer testified that he knew of no communications between Worley and the girlfriend, and that the confidential informant, not the girlfriend, set the price for the pills.
Upon his arrest, Worley wrote out a statement saying that selling the drugs “was an easy way for me to make money.” He pointed out that he had a lot of financial problems and “I don’t do this a lot.” He did not mention in his statement that he had been induced to sell the drugs by the girlfriend’s promises.
The general rule is that entrapment will not lie where the inducement to commit a crime comes from a non-agent private citizen. That is, when a middleman, not a state agent, induces another person to engage in a crime, entrapment is not available as a defense. See State v. Hunter, 586 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla.1991); Prince v. State, 638 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); State v. Perez, 438 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The informant’s girlfriend occupied that position. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give an entrapment instruction. Additionally, we conclude that the facts in this case are not outrageous, and do not constitute subjective entrapment under Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90, 95 (Fla.1993).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Davis v. State, 922 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…usion of the jury charge, Davis objected to the court’s failure to give his requested afterthought instruction. The giving or withholding of a requested jury instruction is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard of review. Worley v. State, 848 So. 2d 491, 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). However, in a criminal proceeding, the trial court’s discretion in this regard is rather narrow because a criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of defense, if there is any evidence…
-
Brown v. State, 11 So. 3d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ably leads to a conviction without critical examination of the evidence.” [*432] IV. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the giving or withholding by a trial court of a requested jury instruction under an abuse of discretion standard. Worley v. State, 848 So. 2d 491, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing Palmore v. State, 838 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)). However, “[w]here an instruction is confusing or misleading, prejudicial error occurs where the jury might reasonably have been misled and the instruction cause…
-
Cruz v. State, 971 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…t is rather narrow because a criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of defense if there is any evidence to support the theory and the theory is recognized as valid under the law of the state. Worley v. State, 848 So. 2d 491 (Fla. [*182] 5th DCA 2003). Here, as recognized by the trial court, there was evidence to support the defendant’s self-defense theory. However, the trial judge refused to give the instruction on justifiable use of non-deadly force because he believe…
Previewing 3 of 26 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)
- State v. Hunter, 586 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1991)
- Mora v. State, 814 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2002)
- State v. Perez, 438 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Pozo v. State, 682 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Flemmings v. State, 838 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Prince v. State, 638 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)