State v. Bass, 83-1686
| Decision Date | 13 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1686,83-1686 |
| Citation | 451 So.2d 986 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Dennis Troy BASS and Charles Wesley Keese, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Katherine V. Blanco, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
William Fuente, Tampa, for appellee Keese.
No appearance for appellee Bass.
Appellees were charged with conspiracy to traffic in marijuana (count I) and trafficking in marijuana (count II). Pursuant to appellees' motions, the court dismissed both counts. The state appeals.
This case arose out of what is commonly referred to as a "reverse-sting" operation. Appellees contacted a confidential informant seeking to purchase marijuana. The informant notified Tampa Police Department personnel who pretended they were in a position to furnish the marijuana. At the appointed time, appellees met with the police to consummate the purchase. An undercover detective delivered the marijuana to Bass who loaded it into his pickup truck while Keese was counting out the money to pay another detective. At this point the appellees were arrested.
Appellees pointed out at the trial level that the substantive offense underlying the conspiracy was the possession of the requisite amount of marijuana, and that they were going to obtain the marijuana from the police. Thus, they successfully argued that there could be no conspiracy because one of the essential ingredients of the substantive crime was to be performed by the police.
In King v. State, 104 So.2d 730 (Fla.1958), two policemen arranged for Moscovitz to carry on gambling and illegal bookmaking under their protection. The supreme court dismissed a conspiracy charge against the policemen because Moscovitz was an undercover agent and his conduct in the gambling operation was an "essential ingredient of the offense" which was the object of the conspiracy. Our court in State v. Brandon, 399 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), interpreted "essential ingredient of the offense," as stated in King, to mean "essential element of the offense." There defendant and a third party had agreed to sell marijuana to an undercover detective. We held that they could properly be convicted of conspiracy to possess marijuana even though they only would have been able to acquire the marijuana for resale through the use of front money furnished by the detective. The detective's participation was deemed tangential to the crime of possession.
The recent case of State v. Cristodero, 426 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), applied these principles to a "reverse-sting" operation. In upholding an information charging three defendants with conspiracy to traffic in cannabis, the court said:
In the present case, the gravamen of the substantive offense underlying the conspiracy was possession of cannabis. The essential elements of the crime of possession are knowledge of the presence of contraband and the ability to maintain control over it or reduce it to possession. The undisputed facts reflect that defendants came to the scene to gain possession for themselves of a load of cannabis in return for the $240,000. The possession involved in this conspiracy is not the possession of the seller-police agent, but the anticipated possession of the defendants. Therefore, they intended to and agreed with each other to commit all of the ingredients of the crime charged. Simply because the government agents were to deliver the cannabis to the defendants at the scene does not mean the police alone were to commit an essential element of the substantive crime. Rather, as in Brandon, supra, we hold that the government agents' participation was tangential to the gravamen of the substantive offense charged. This clearly differentiates the present case from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kemp v. State
...substance. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the lower court's dismissal of the charges, founded on entrapment. In State v. Bass, 451 So.2d 986 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984), the defendants contacted an informant, seeking to purchase marijuana. The informant then told the police, who, in turn, ......
-
Tarawneh v. State, 88-2191
...4th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 436 So.2d 100 (Fla.1983). See also Cummings v. State, 514 So.2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State v. Bass, 451 So.2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Additionally, Petrillo's involvement in the conspiracy began before he became an informant. We need not address the question ......
-
State v. Williams
...purpose" and that the Sheriff's Office acted pursuant to section 893.13(5)(b)(5), Florida Statutes (1989), and State v. Bass, 451 So.2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Williams proceeded to trial and the jury convicted him of purchasing a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a secondary school.......
-
Wright v. Attorney Gen.
...of a controlled substance in a reverse sting operation is not a violation of state law. See App. C at 17-18 (relying on State v. Bass, 451 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the state court's ruling is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, fe......