ANTONIO GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
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.
Antonio Gonzalez appeals his cocaine trafficking and conspiracy conviction, claiming the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on objective entrapment. The appellate court affirms, finding that neither prong of the objective entrapment test under Cruz v. State was established.
The court holds that objective entrapment was not established as a matter of law because both prongs of the Cruz test were satisfied: the police activity had the end of interrupting specific ongoing criminal activity, and the means used were reasonably tailored to apprehend those involved in that activity.
[1] Objective entrapment requires that police activity have as its end the interruption of a specific ongoing criminal activity.
[2] Objective entrapment requires that police activity utilize means reasonably tailored to apprehend those involved in the ongoing criminal activity.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“his defense of objective entrapment was established as a matter of law under Cruz v. State”
States the defendant's primary argument on appeal regarding the entrapment defense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGonzalez, a drug seller, was introduced to an undercover police officer by a confidential informant. After this introduction, Gonzalez sold cocaine to…
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 Objective Entrapment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Antonio Gonzalez appeals his conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine entered below upon an adverse jury verdict. He contends as his sole point on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because, it is urged, his defense of objective entrapment was established as a matter of law under Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985).1 Based on the authority of State v. Konces, 521 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) and State v. Lusby, 507 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1276 (Fla.1987), we disagree and con-elude that neither of the two prongs of objective entrapment under Cruz was established in this case.
The defendant drug seller was put in touch with an undercover police officer by a confidential informant, and thereafter the defendant sold cocaine to the undercover officer. Plainly, this police-sponsored activity (1) had “as its end the interruption of a specific ongoing criminal activity,” Cruz, 465 So. 2d at 522, and (2) “utilize[d] means reasonably tailored to apprehend those involved in the ongoing criminal activity.” Id. The fact that the confidential informant and the police had no information that the defendant was selling illicit drugs prior to this drug-trafficking incident, and that the confidential informer called the defendant ten or fifteen times to induce the instant meeting with the undercover officer cannot, as urged, change this result; nor are we impressed that the cajolery used by the confidential informer on the defendant amounted, as urged, to prohibited police conduct under Cruz.
The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is, therefore, in all respects
Affirmed.
. We note that the Cruz objective test of entrapment has been abolished by Section 777.201, Florida Statutes (1987), effective October 1, 1987. Because the offense in this case occurred prior to that date, however, the Cruz objective test remains applicable. State v. Lopez, 522 So. 2d 537, 537 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1985)
- Wilson v. Florida, 473 U.S. 905 (U.S. 1985)
- Christoffersen et ux. v. United States, 473 U.S. 905 (U.S. 1985)
- Lusby v. State, 507 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- State v. Margo E. Konces, 521 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Lopez, 522 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)