Kwasniewski v. State
| Decision Date | 21 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. U--382,U--382 |
| Citation | 303 So.2d 373 |
| Parties | Thomas John KWASNIEWSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John Paul Howard, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Thomas John Kwasniewski, was charged with possession and sale of marijuana and possession and sale of LSD and the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all four charges. This appeal is from the court's judgment and sentence.
Deputy Sheriff Taylor of the Duval County Sheriff's Department, who was working under cover, and one Billy Wasserman, an informant for the Sheriff's Department, went to appellant's home because the informant 'believed that he could purchase some drugs there.' The testimony of appellant and that of the state's witnesses is conflicting on the events and particularly on the substance of the conversations that thereafter occurred. Appellant has raised several points upon which he relies for reversal, but we consider that only one of them has merit--whether or not the trial court erred in denying appellant's requested instruction on entrapment. From the evidence adduced in this case, the answer to this question depends upon whether or not appellant presented evidence which entitled him to a charge on entrapment. If we consider only the state's evidence, such charge would not have been proper, but when we look at the appellant's evidence, we find that it should have been given.
The following is a summary of pertinent portion of Appellant's testimony. Appellant testified that when Wasserman and Officer Taylor came to his house, Wasserman introduced Taylor as a friend who was seeking a pound of marijuana and Taylor asked appellant if he had a pound of marijuana. Appellant replied that he did not and Taylor then asked if he knew where he could get some. Appellant replied, 'I'm not sure, but I will go check.' Taylor asked if there were any other kind of drugs that he could purchase and appellant said he did not know. Taylor asked him, 'Was there any kind of chemicals, such as LSD or anything, or mescaline.' Appellant replied that he had no idea. Appellant and Wasserman left to go to the house of a friend appellant had met through his work who did not have a telephone and lived about seven miles away. Taylor stayed at appellant's house with appellant's wife. Appellant and Wasserman arrived at the trailer of appellant's friend, one Richard. Wasserman stayed in the automobile and appellant walked up to the trailer and knocked and said, 'There's somebody at my house who is seeking a pound of marijuana and some chemicals, some drugs.' Richard said that he didn't have a pound of marijuana, but he knew where he could get it, and he would have somebody bring it to appellant's place. Appellant told him, 'Well, the guy said he will sit there and wait for it.' Appellant and Wasserman then went back to appellant's house where they all waited for Richard to arrive with the pound of marijuana. When he arrived, he came in the door with a brown paper bag containing the pound of marijuana and asked appellant what he should do with it. He handed it to appellant who put it on the table and asked Taylor to inspect it and appellant 'stood off in the back while Richard and Mr. Tyalor made their transaction.' Appellant did not participate in their conversation. Richard sold Taylor the pound of marijuana for $200 and five pills of mescaline for $2 each. Richard and Taylor had a further discussion about future transactions in which appellant did not participate and they left. Appellant testified that no one paid him any money for anything and he did not share in any of the money that was given by Taylor to Richard. On...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. State
...to appear or to deliver cocaine. We have in this case no ready complaisance on the part of the defendant. See Kwasniewski v. State, 303 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (officers' acts of "nagging" or "bugging" the defendant to obtain illegal narcotics are evidence of entrapment); Stiglitz v. ......
-
Palmes v. State
...v. State, 200 So.2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); coercion, Koontz v. State, 204 So.2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), entrapment, Kwasniewski v. State, 303 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Stiglitz v. State, 270 So.2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), justifiable homicide, Stinson v. State, 245 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1st......
-
State v. Acosta
...of three months to participate in the crime. This assertion, if true, might constitute an entrapment defense. See Kwasniewski v. State, 303 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Stiglitz v. State, 270 So.2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). In addition, a defendant must demonstrate that the testimony of th......
-
Orange v. State, 75--1175
...262 So.2d 458; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1972, 264 So.2d 28; Gonzales v. State, Fla.App.1972, 268 So.2d 552; Kwasniewski v. State, Fla.App.1974, 303 So.2d 373. The lone case to the contrary in such situation is Parker v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 253, decided by the First District Court ......