Nadeau v. State
1995 WL 750316, 683 So. 2d 504 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Outrageous government conduct, such as failing to supervise an informant who uses threats and coercion to induce a non-predisposed individual into committing a crime, constitutes a violation of due process and establishes the defense of subjective entrapment as a matter of law.
Facts:
- David Antar, a convicted felon acting as a government informant, was instructed not to entrap or coerce anyone.
- Nadeau testified that Antar had previously threatened him with a shotgun and was a person he feared.
- While in jail, Antar began making numerous, unmonitored collect calls to David Nadeau's home, threatening Nadeau and his family if he did not agree to sell cocaine to pay Antar's legal fees.
- Feeling threatened, Nadeau eventually agreed and Antar coached him on how to act like a drug dealer.
- Antar connected Nadeau with an undercover detective, Ray Shackoor, to arrange a reverse sting.
- Nadeau had no money to purchase the drugs, so Detective Shackoor agreed to 'front' the cocaine to him.
- During their interactions, Detective Shackoor observed that Nadeau appeared ignorant of the drug trade, asking basic questions like whether cocaine goes bad.
- Nadeau had no prior criminal history, was lawfully employed, and the state presented no evidence that he used drugs or had previously engaged in drug dealing.
Procedural Posture:
- David Nadeau was charged with trafficking in cocaine in a Florida trial court.
- At trial, Nadeau moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing he was entrapped and his due process rights were violated.
- The trial court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal.
- Nadeau was convicted of the trafficking charge.
- Nadeau, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
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 law enforcement's use of a largely unsupervised, threatening informant to induce a person with no criminal history or predisposition into committing a drug trafficking offense constitute both a due process violation and entrapment as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The law enforcement conduct in this case was so outrageous as to constitute a denial of appellant's due process rights, and the appellant was entrapped as a matter of law. The court found the government's failure to supervise its informant, Antar, was a violation of due process, citing State v. Anders. The police allowed Antar, without control or supervision, to create a crime and an offender where none previously existed by making numerous unmonitored, threatening phone calls to Nadeau. Furthermore, the court applied Florida's two-part subjective test for entrapment. First, Nadeau proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was induced by Antar's repeated threats and harassment. Second, once inducement was shown, the state failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Nadeau was predisposed to commit the crime. Given Nadeau's lack of criminal history and ignorance of the drug trade, and the state's failure to present any rebuttal evidence (such as testimony from Antar), no factual issue regarding predisposition was in dispute, and the issue should not have been submitted to the jury.
Dissenting - Glickstein, J.
The dissent was issued without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the due process defense against outrageous government conduct, particularly the failure of law enforcement to adequately supervise and control their informants. It establishes that allowing an informant to use coercion and threats to manufacture a crime is constitutionally impermissible. The case also provides a clear application of Florida's subjective entrapment test, clarifying that if a defendant presents unrebutted evidence of both government inducement and a personal lack of predisposition, they are entitled to a judgment of acquittal as a matter of law, removing the question from the jury's consideration.
Unlock the full brief for Nadeau v. State