JAMES H. FRADY, 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.
James Frady was convicted of violating Florida's Drug Abuse Law after a jury trial. He appealed arguing the trial court should have directed a verdict of not guilty based on entrapment, but the appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that Frady was not entrapped as a matter of law.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that Officer Albach's testimony was sufficient to make a jury question regarding entrapment, and the jury properly resolved the entrapment issue against Frady.
[1] A jury question of entrapment is presented when there is evidence that the defendant was willing to procure drugs and indicated a source of supply.
[2] Evidence of a defendant's willingness to procure drugs and knowledge of a source of supply is sufficient to create a jury issue on the defense of entrapment.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 met Frady while "shooting pool" on June 20, 1969; that an associate of Albach, one Tom Pellium, asked Frady if he could get him "any more blue flats", another name for the drug L.S.D.”
Establishes the initial police contact with Frady regarding obtaining LSD
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrady met Clearwater police officer Louis Albach while shooting pool on June 20, 1969. Albach asked Frady if he could get LSD in quantities at reduced…
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 Jury Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant James H. Frady was convicted after jury trial of an information charging him with violation of the Florida Drug Abuse Law. He appeals to this Court, con*57tending principally that the trial Court should have directed a verdict of not guilty or entered judgment of acquittal “based upon the defense of entrapment.” This presupposes that there was no evidence contrary to a conclusion that Frady was entrapped by the police officers. We disagree and affirm.
The testimony of State witness Louis Albach, a Clearwater police officer, is sufficient of itself to make a jury issue. He testified he met Frady while “shooting pool” on June 20, 1969; that an associate of Albach, one Tom Pellium, asked Frady if he could get him “any more blue flats”, another name for the drug L.S.D. Frady replied that he didn’t know but if he couldn’t he would try to get “something heavier, meaning stronger. A stronger dosage of L.S.D.” Albach then asked Frady to “work out a deal” for him to “buy in quantities” at reduced price. Frady asked Albach for five dollars, which Al-bach gave him. Frady later reported back to Albach and Pellium that he had been unable to get “anything” and gave back the five dollar bill. Later the same evening Frady again asked Albach if he had any money, at which time Albach gave Frady five one dollar bills. A short time later Frady came back with the drug, which he gave to Albach. Frady asked Albach if he “would want anymore”. Albach said he would “try this one out, and if it was any good” he would contact Frady later. Frady told him that it would take about a half hour for the drug to take effect and that “his source of supply, or his source, was going to be leaving the beach in about an hour”. Frady left, and soon thereafter Albach contacted the Clearwater Police Department, turned the drug over to another detective, and in due course Frady was arrested and charged with the drug violation.
The foregoing condensed version of Al-bach’s testimony was amply sufficient to make a jury question of the issue of entrapment. The jury was amply charged on entrapment and Frady’s counsel made no objection to the sufficiency of the charges. The jury resolved the issue against Frady. He has no room to complain.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fidel Guzman v. State, 498 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…efense raised herein. See State v. Brider, 386 So. 2d 818, 820-21 (Fla.2d DCA), pet. for review denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980); Richert v. State, 338 So. 2d 40, 44-45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 346 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.1977); Frady v. State, 235 So. 2d 56, 57 (Fla.2d DCA 1970). The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review are, in all respects, Affirmed.…