EDDIE SAMUEL IVORY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Eddie Ivory was convicted of violating Florida's Narcotics Law by selling narcotics in a bench trial. On appeal, he challenged the conviction based on insufficient evidence and an entrapment defense, but the court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence and holding that Ivory's own testimony denying commission of the act precluded him from raising entrapment.
The conviction is affirmed because sufficient evidence supports the verdict, and the entrapment defense is unavailable to Ivory because his own testimony denying commission of the act charged is inconsistent with raising an entrapment defense, which presupposes the act was committed.
“the defense of entrapment is not available to a defendant who denies that he committed the offense charged, on the theory that entrapment presupposes the act charged was committed and a denial of the offense is inconsistent with the defense of entrapment”
Establishes the fundamental principle that entrapment as a defense logically requires admission of the underlying act
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIvory was tried before a judge (non-jury trial) for violating Florida's Narcotics Law by committing a sale of narcotics. The trial record contained ev…
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 Plea Of Not Guilty cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant [defendant in the trial court], by this appeal seeks review of a conviction for violating the Florida Narcotics Law by committing a sale thereof.
The cause was tried non-jury. For reversal in this court, the appellant relies on the following particulars as error by the trial court: (1) Denial of the appellant’s motion for directed verdict at the close of the State’s case, where the prosecution has failed to prove a prima facie case. (2) Entering the verdict of guilty, when the defense of entrapment was raised and the facts clearly substantiate such a defense.
From the record, we find- sufficient evidence to support the verdict, same being therein contained, and it should be affirmed. See: Zalla v. State, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 649; Dibona v. State, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 192; Sharon v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 677. As to the defense of entrapment, it is apparent that from the disputed evidence it was within the prerogative of the trier of the fact to find that the defendant was the moving factor in concluding the sale and not the State investigator’s. The State contends that, in view of the plea of not guilty in this cause, the accused may not avail himself of the defense of entrapment. Normally under a plea of not guilty an accused may avail himself of any defense not required by law to be specifically pleaded, and all matters of justification and excuse. See: 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 454.1 Thus, the question of entrapment may be raised on a plea of not guilty. See: Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413; Wharton’s Criminal Law & Procedure, Vol. 4, p. 771, § 1902. See also: Henderson v. United States, C.A.Fla., 237 F.2d 169, 61 A.L.R.2d 666. However, it also appears that the defense of entrapment is not available to a defendant who denies that he committed the offense charged, on the theory that entrapment presupposes the act charged was committed and a denial of the offense is inconsistent with the defense of entrapment. See: 61 A.L.R.2d 677, Annotation and cases cited therein. Therefore,, in the case sub judice, the appellant-defendant cannot raise the defense of entrapment as his own testimony; denying the commission of the act charged precludes such a defense.
Therefore for the reasons above stated, the conviction here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Stripling v. State, 349 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…rapment by law enforce [*191] ment officers, and unless it has done so you should find the defendant not guilty.” * * s(t * * * Nevertheless, the prosecution argues that this challenged instruction is in accord with the holdings in Ivory v. State, 173 So. 2d 759 (Fla.3d DCA 1965) and Pearson v. State, 221 So. 2d 760 (Fla.2d DCA 1969) that the defense of entrapment is not available to a defendant who denies he committed the offense charged on the theory that entrapment presupposes the act charged was committ…
-
Mellins v. State, 395 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…arrel with the rule announced by those cases. The rule is that the defense of entrapment is not available to one who denies commission of the criminal act with which he is charged. Pearson v. State, 221 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Ivory v. State, 173 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). However, we find it inapplicable here. More in point is the rationale underlying the court’s determination that a defendant could deny being involved in a conspiracy while at the same time relying on the defense of entrapment as…
-
Pope v. State, 458 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…s premised simply on a general plea of not guilty and the incomplete defense of voluntary intoxication. A plea of not guilty should not preclude the defense of voluntary intoxication anymore than it precludes a defense of entrapment/ Ivory v. State, 173 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), cert. dismissed, 183 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1965). JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1932)
- Henderson v. United States, 237 F.2d 169 (5th Cir. 1956)
- Sharon v. State, 156 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Guido DI Bona v. State, 121 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Zalla v. State, 61 So.2d 649 (Fla. 1952)