Madera v. State, 4D05-2800.
| Decision Date | 06 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D05-2800.,4D05-2800. |
| Citation | 943 So.2d 960 |
| Parties | Peter MADERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
The appellant pled no contest to charges of trafficking in MDMA, conspiracy to traffic in MDMA, and delivery of MDMA, reserving his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss. The motion asserted that, on the undisputed facts, he was entrapped as a matter of law. We agree and reverse.
Both the appellant and the appellee have raised certain procedural deficiencies in the motion and in the traverse, none of which were raised below and none of which will be considered here. Instead, we focus on what allegations were not specifically denied by the State, and thus were admitted for purposes of the motion to dismiss, and whether those facts constitute entrapment as a matter of law. See State v. Patlon, 443 So.2d 346, 348 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983).
The State argues that because it denied that the Defendant lacked a predisposition to commit the crime, a material issue of fact was in dispute and thus, the motion was properly denied. This argument, however ignores the distinction between a subjective and objective theory of entrapment. In the former, a predisposition to commit the crime will defeat the affirmative defense of entrapment. In the latter, predisposition is not an issue. Rather, the question is whether the conduct of law enforcement was so egregious as to violate the due process rights of the defendant. See Munoz v. State, 629 So.2d 90, 99 (Fla.1993); State v. Glosson, 462 So.2d 1082, 1084 (Fla.1985); Curry v. State, 876 So.2d 29, 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
The facts alleged in the motion that were not specifically denied by the state include the following: The defendant was 37 years old with absolutely no criminal history, unknown to law enforcement officers, and gainfully employed in lawful activity at the time the confidential informant first approached him. The defendant became romantically interested in the CI and she led him to believe that she was similarly interested in him. She first brought up the topic of illegal drug use and continually asked the defendant if he knew where to buy drugs or if he could obtain drugs for her. The defendant repeatedly told her that he did not use or sell illegal drugs, and that, being new to the area, he did not know anyone who used or sold drugs.
The CI made promises of an intimate relationship, to include sexual relations, if the defendant would assist her in obtaining drugs. She discussed her personal medical problems with the defendant and played on his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deleon v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...so offends decency or a sense of justice that judicial power may not be exercised to obtain a conviction. See, e.g., Madera v. State, 943 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (confidential informant made promises of an intimate relationship, including sexual relations, if the defendant would assi......
-
Bist v. State Of Fla.
...coupled with promises of protection from government interference, was a violation of due process). Similarly, in Madera v. State, 943 So.2d 960, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), the defendant's due process rights were violated when the informant pretended to be romantically interested in the defend......
-
State v. Murphy
...after the undercover government agent purposely established a sexual relationship with the defendant. See, e.g., Madera v. State, 943 So.2d 960, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Curry v. State, 876 So.2d 29, 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). But that sort of “preying” on human frailties and emotions is not p......
-
State v. Laing
...process clause of the Florida Constitution by manufacturing crack cocaine to be used in reverse-sting operation); Madera v. State, 943 So.2d 960, 961–62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that law enforcement violated due process clause of the Florida Constitution where confidential informant pro......
-
Pretrial motions and defenses
...facts constitute egregious police behavior and the court errs in refusing to dismiss on an objective entrapment claim. Madera v. State, 943 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) The fact that the undercover LEO sent in to buy crack was an attractive white woman in a black neighborhood, wearing sed......