Blanco v. State
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 29, 218 So. 3d 939 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's conduct and statements made after the government induces the commission of a crime, such as the use of drug-trade jargon during the transaction, can be admissible evidence to prove the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime prior to the inducement.
Facts:
- Joaquin Blanco met Jesus Felizzula at a facility for persons with HIV, where Felizzula served as Blanco's mentor; the two later became lovers.
- Felizzula, a convicted drug trafficker, was acting as a confidential informant for the State under a plea agreement that required him to produce trafficking-level cases.
- Blanco, a real estate agent with no prior criminal record or history of drug dealing, sold Felizzula's home, but Felizzula was unsatisfied with the financial outcome.
- Felizzula subsequently moved out of state but repeatedly called Blanco, asking him to arrange a drug deal in Miami to prove his love and to make amends for the money lost on the home sale.
- After repeated refusals, Blanco relented and agreed to facilitate the sale of crystal methamphetamine to an undercover police officer.
- During a recorded phone call with the undercover officer, Blanco used coded drug-trade language to arrange the sale, receiving simultaneous instructions on the code from Felizzula online.
- Felizzula had an envelope containing the drugs delivered to Blanco.
- Blanco met with the undercover officer, exchanged the envelope for the agreed-upon cash, and was immediately arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Joaquin Blanco with drug trafficking.
- At trial in the state trial court, Blanco raised an entrapment defense.
- The jury rejected the entrapment defense and returned a guilty verdict.
- Blanco's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the intermediate appellate court.
- Blanco filed a post-conviction motion in the trial court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to dismiss the case based on entrapment.
- The trial court denied Blanco’s post-conviction motion.
- Blanco, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's denial to this court, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's use of criminal jargon during a government-arranged crime, which occurs after the initial government inducement, constitute legally sufficient evidence of predisposition to commit the crime for the purpose of defeating a subjective entrapment defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Logue, J.
Yes. A defendant's conduct after the government induced him to commit an offense can be relevant to prove predisposition. While care must be taken when evaluating such evidence, post-inducement acts and statements are admissible if they tend to show the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime before the inducement occurred. The court rejected the proposed bright-line rule that would categorically exclude all post-inducement conduct. Citing Munoz v. State, the court emphasized that the prosecution may make an 'appropriate and searching inquiry' into the accused's conduct. Here, Blanco's use of drug-trade jargon during the transaction was evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that he was not an 'unwary innocent' but an 'unwary criminal' who was already predisposed to commit the crime. Therefore, the issue of predisposition was a question of fact properly submitted to the jury.
Dissenting - Suarez, C.J.
No. A defendant's use of jargon provided by an informant during the transaction itself cannot be the sole evidence of predisposition, especially when the record is completely void of any other evidence that the defendant was inclined to commit the crime. The dissent argues the majority engages in circular reasoning by using the commission of the induced act as proof of a pre-existing disposition to commit it. The prefix 'pre-' in 'predisposition' requires that the disposition exist before government contact. Because Blanco had no criminal history, was not suspected of criminal activity, and repeatedly refused the informant's requests, there was no evidence of ready acquiescence or predisposition. The dissent contends that Blanco was entrapped as a matter of law, and the case should never have gone to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of evidence admissible to rebut a subjective entrapment defense in Florida. By rejecting a categorical exclusion of post-inducement conduct, the court provides prosecutors with a significant tool to defeat entrapment claims. The ruling allows the defendant's performance during the commission of the induced crime to be used as circumstantial evidence of their pre-existing criminal state of mind. This may make it more difficult for defendants, particularly those without a criminal record, to have entrapment defenses decided in their favor as a matter of law, shifting more of these fact-intensive determinations to the jury.
Unlock the full brief for Blanco v. State