ROY THOMAS MCDADE, 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 appellate court reversed a conviction for selling marijuana because the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment. The court found that there was sufficient evidence, if believed by the jury, to support the defendant's entrapment theory.
Yes, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request for a jury instruction on entrapment. When there is sufficient competent evidence, if believed by the jury, to sustain the defense, the defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on that theory of the case.
“The sole point raised on appeal is whether the trial court committed error in denying appellant's request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment.”
This quote establishes the central legal issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoy Thomas McDade was convicted of unlawfully selling cannabis (marijuana) after a jury trial. The defendant requested a jury instruction on the defen…
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
This is an appeal by the defendant, Roy Thomas McDade, from a judgment and sentence following a jury trial and conviction on a charge of unlawfully selling a quantity of a narcotic drug, to-wit: cannabis, also known as marijuana.
The sole point raised on appeal is whether the trial court committed error in denying appellant’s request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment.
The trial court, holding that the evidence was insufficient to raise the issue of entrapment, denied the instruction on the authority of Koptyra v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 628. Our review of the record leads us to the conclusion that it was error for the trial court to deny defendant’s request for instruction on this defense. While the evidence is conflicting, there is sufficient competent evidence which if believed by the jury, would sustain defendant’s theory of the defense of entrapment. This being so, defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed upon his theory of the case. Holley v. Kelley, Fla.1957, 91 So.2d 862.
The judgment and sentence are severally vacated and the cause remanded for a new trial.
WALDEN, C. J., and REED, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Koptyra v. State, 172 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- State of Fla. & the Taxpayers v. Special TAX Sch. Dist. No. 1 OF Broward Cnty., 91 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1956)
- Matter of Joann Resch, 91 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1957)