DONALD JOSEPH LIPTAK AND CESAR AUGUSTO CEPEDA, APPELLANTS,
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.
Two defendants were convicted of selling LSD after an undercover police operation using a young girl to make a purchase. The Florida appellate court reversed their convictions, finding that the uncontradicted evidence established entrapment as a matter of law.
The court held that the uncontradicted evidence of entrapment established the defense as a matter of law, requiring reversal of the convictions and discharge of the defendants.
[1] Entrapment is established when the evidence shows that a defendant was influenced to commit a crime by additional consideration offered by an informant, beyond the price…
[2] A conviction for sale of a hallucinogenic drug cannot stand when the defense of entrapment is established by uncontradicted evidence.
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“The defense was established by evidence that was not contradicted.”
Establishes that the entrapment defense rested on uncontradicted evidence at trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants Liptak and Cepeda were charged with sale and possession of LSD. At trial, the evidence showed that a young girl acting with a police office…
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
The appellants Donald Joseph Liptak (appeal No. 71-650) and Cesar Augusto Cepeda (appeal No. 71-783) were charged in one count of an information with sale of hallucinogenic drug (LSD) and in a second count with possession of the drug. On trial before the court without a jury they were found guilty on the sale charge. The possession charge was dismissed as to Liptak, and adjudication of guilt thereon was withheld as to Cepeda. Liptak was sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen months and Cepeda for a term of two years.
At trial the defendants relied on the defense of entrapment. The defense was established by evidence that was not contradicted. In short summary, the evidence disclosed that a young girl, acting with a police officer, was dispatched by the latter to make a purchase of the drug from one of the defendants. The defendant first approached called upon the other who supplied the drug for the sale made to the girl, for which the defendants were then arrested. The girl did not testify at trial. The defendants testified, without contradiction, that in soliciting the purchase the girl offered, in addition to the price, a personal consideration; that they had not been inclined to make a sale to her, but were influenced to do so by the added consideration she offered. The officer involved was without knowledge as to what transpired between the girl and the defendants in making the purchase, and he was unable to testify with respect to the same. See Koptyra v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 628; Dupuy v. State, Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 825 ; 9 Fla.Jur., Criminal Law § 183.
The judgments are reversed and the cause remanded with direction to discharge the defendants.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Koptyra v. State, 172 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Dupuy v. State, 141 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)