LAWRENCE WILLIAMS, 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.
Lawrence Williams was convicted of selling heroin after an undercover officer repeatedly requested his assistance in purchasing drugs, promising to share the heroin in return. The court reversed the conviction because the trial court improperly refused to instruct the jury on the entrapment defense, which was supported by evidence in the record.
The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment. When a defendant raises an entrapment defense and there is evidence to support it, the jury must be instructed on the applicable law. The question of whether entrapment occurred is for the jury to decide.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on entrapment if there is any evidence in the record to support that defense.
[2] When a defendant admits to the commission of the charged act but claims entrapment, the issue of whether entrapment occurred is a question for the jury.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence introduced to support the instruction.”
Establishes the standard for when entrapment instructions must be given
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn undercover detective visited Williams' home and requested heroin multiple times. When Williams initially refused, the officer persisted with additi…
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
RYDER, Judge.
Lawrence Williams appeals his conviction and sentence for sale of heroin, contending that the trial court improperly refused his request for a jury instruction on entrapment. We agree and reverse.
The State’s evidence revealed that an undercover detective went to appellant’s home and asked appellant if he could supply the undercover detective with a $100.00 “piece.” Appellant replied, “No way, man.” The detective pressed appellant further, however, with a request for purchase of ten “dime bags.” The subject matter of each request, although understandably in the vernacular, referred to heroin. The undercover agent asked appellant to purchase the heroin for him three times before appellant acceded to the officer’s entreaties. The officer testified that all through the period in which he made overtures to appellant, the officer was rubbing his arms and squirming, such conduct was represented as that which an addict might display as the effects of heroin wear off.
The -undercover officer also related he promised appellant a portion of the heroin if he would buy the heroin and deliver same to the officer. The appellant, thereafter, left his home, purchased heroin for the officer, returned home, kept one bag for himself, and returned some of the officer’s money to the detective as he had not been able to buy as much heroin as requested.
After the close of the State’s case, appellant took the stand and testified in his own behalf. He admitted purchasing the heroin for the officer. He admitted delivering the heroin to the officer and keeping a bag for himself. But, he contended he consented to make the purchase only because he was told, and from the officer’s actions believed, the detective was sick and in need of a fix.
Thus, in admitting the commission of the act charged and as appellant was clearly proceeding on an entrapment theory of defense, the issue of whether he was, in reality, entrapped was a jury question. See Smith v. State, 320 So. 2d 420 (Fla.2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 334 So. 2d 608 (Fla.1976). A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence introduced to support the instruction. Laythe v. State, 330 So. 2d 113 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1976).
We hasten to note that we are fully aware of the problems confronting law enforcement agencies, especially in this area, and the reader should in no way interpret this opinion as holding that this officer’s activity did, in fact, amount to entrapment. However, it does appear from the record that there is evidence to support appellant’s defense of entrapment and therefore, it is a question for the jury to decide. Accordingly, appellant’s conviction and sentence are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
We find no reversible error in any of the other points raised by appellant.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 368 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ue was thus a prej- [*398] udicially erroneous3 failure to charge on a theory of defense supported by an acceptable view of the evidence. Laythe v. State, 330 So. 2d 113 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1976); Williams v. State, 356 So. 2d 46 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). In the ordinary case, such a finding of error in the jury charges would result in a new trial at which correct instructions would be given. But this is not an ordinary case. Here, the jury has acquitted the defendant of resisting…
-
Marrero v. State, 493 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…jury on the law applicable to the defendant’s theory of defense where evidence is introduced to support such instruction. Hudson v. State, 408 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Williams v. State, 395 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Williams v. State, 356 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); see Rodriguez v. State, 396 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). When a defendant presents evidence tending to prove the defense of entrapment, he has a right to have the jury instructed on the law of entrapment. Kwasniewski v. State,…
-
Cora Cannon v. State, 464 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…t the aggressor, she was entitled to the requested instruction. Smith v. State, 424 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145, 103 S.Ct. 3129, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Mellins v. State, 395 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Williams v. State, 356 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979). Accordingly, the judg [*152] ment is reversed and this cause is remanded for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . § 782.07, Fla.Stat. (1981). . See 2 William L. Burdick, Law of Crimes, § 4…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 320 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Anderson v. State, 330 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Laythe v. State, 330 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)