ALLAN JAY NADELL, 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 court held that when evidence conflicts on the entrapment defense, the issue is for the trier of fact, and their resolution binds the appellate court.
The defendant was convicted of drug offenses and raised entrapment as an affirmative defense. The evidence presented at trial conflicted regarding who…
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 Trier Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, defendant below, had raised the affirmative defense of entrapment at his non-jury trial. He was convicted of the crimes of: sale of marijuana and possession of marijuana. By this appeal, he contends that a preponderance of the evidence at trial established the defense of entrapment, and therefore, the court erred in not entering a judgment of acquittal or granting a new trial.
An accurate summation of the defense of entrapment is found in Langford v. State, 111 Fla. 506, 149 So. 570, wherein the court stated:
“In determining whether or not an entrapment may be sufficient to constitute a defense, the distinction to be observed is the difference between cases where in one it is shown that officers, in order to establish the basis for a prosecution, entice one who is not engaged in a criminal enterprise to commit an offense mala prohibita, when otherwise the person so enticed would not have engaged in such enterprise, and in the other it is shown that one engaged in an unlawful enterprise is enticed to do an act which may be used as direct evidence of his guilt.”
In the instant case, the evidence conflicted as to which of the two principal parties, i. e., the defendant or the state’s chief witness, originated the criminal enterprise. And, when such conflict is presented regarding the defense of entrapment, the issue of whether such entrapment occurred is for the jury, or judge when sitting as trier of fact. See especially: Wall v. United States (5 Cir. 1933) 65 F.2d 993; Carter v. State, Fla.1963, 155 So.2d 787; Annot. 33 A.L.R.2d 883, 902 (1954). Compare: DiSalvo v. United States (8 Cir. 1924) 2 F.2d 222; and Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 745 (in both cases,, uncontradicted testimony by the defendant which demonstrated that entrapment had occurred entitled him to dismissal).
The judge, in his capacity as trier of fact, resolved the issue against the defendant and we must therefore affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stiglitz v. State, 270 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…appellant was entitled to have the jury determine the question of entrapment, and the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the defense of entrapment. Carter v. State, 155 So. 2d 787 (Fla.1963); State v. Rouse, supra; Nadell v. State, 229 So. 2d 592 (Fla.App.1969); McDade v. State, 211 So. 2d 242 (Fla.App.1968); Dupuy v. State, 141 So. 2d 825 (Fla.App.1962). We have carefully examined the remaining points raised by appellant and have determined them to be without merit. [*413] Accordingly, the…
-
Belote v. State, 344 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1977)…ice. By petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 312 So. 2d 267, which allegedly conflicts with Kilgore v. State, 271 So. 2d 148 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); Nadell v. State, 229 So. 2d 592 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); and Spencer v. State, 263 So. 2d 282 (Fla.1st DCA 1972). We have jurisdiction. Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Petitioner was charged in three separate informations with possession of more than five grams of mar…
-
Roundtree v. State, 271 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…inal design or intent originated in the minds of the officers who by persuasion induced its commission by the accused. Carter v. State, 155 So. 2d 787 (Fla.1963), appeal dismissed 376 U.S. 648, 84 S.Ct. 983, 11 L.Ed.2d 980. See also Nadell v. State, 229 So. 2d 592 (Fla.App.1969). Under such circumstances the trial court wisely left the question of entrapment for the jury to resolve and I would sustain the trial court’s refusal to grant defendants’ motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 155 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1963)
- Wall v. United States, 65 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1933)
- Langford v. State, 111 Fla. 506 (Fla. 1933)
- Di Salvo v. United States, 2 F.2d 222 (8th Cir. 1924)
- Michael v. Schekter, 185 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)