Rivera v. State
2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18506, 180 So. 3d 1195 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a case where a defendant claims subjective entrapment, evidence of the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record is relevant and admissible to prove a lack of predisposition to commit the crime. A trial court's exclusion of such evidence is a reversible error when entrapment is the defendant's sole defense and the state cannot prove the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- Nelson Rivera worked as a site manager for Waste Management for ten years, earning a stable income.
- In August 2011, Rivera was laid off due to the economy, after which he lost his house and car and experienced significant financial hardship.
- A confidential informant (CI) for the police befriended Rivera, aware of his financial struggles.
- The CI repeatedly and aggressively pressured Rivera to sell cocaine to alleviate his financial problems.
- The CI provided Rivera with a supplier to obtain the cocaine.
- On three occasions in June and July 2012, Rivera sold cocaine to an undercover officer in the presence of the CI.
Procedural Posture:
- Nelson Rivera was prosecuted by the State of Florida in a trial court for eight drug offenses.
- At trial, Rivera raised the affirmative defense of subjective entrapment.
- The trial court granted the State's request to prohibit Rivera from testifying about his lack of a prior criminal record.
- A jury convicted Rivera of the drug offenses.
- Rivera appealed his convictions and sentences to the Florida Second 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 trial court commit reversible error by prohibiting a defendant from introducing evidence of a lack of a prior criminal record to support a subjective entrapment defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Silberman, Judge
Yes, a trial court commits reversible error by prohibiting a defendant from introducing evidence of a lack of a prior criminal record to support a subjective entrapment defense. To establish subjective entrapment under Florida law, a defendant must first prove government inducement and then produce evidence of a lack of predisposition. A defendant's lack of a prior criminal record is directly relevant to establishing a lack of predisposition. Here, Rivera's sole defense was entrapment, and the excluded evidence went to the heart of that defense. Because the State, as the beneficiary of the error, could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that excluding this evidence did not contribute to the conviction, the error was not harmless. Therefore, the convictions must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the evidentiary requirements for the subjective entrapment defense in Florida. It solidifies the principle that a defendant's history and character, specifically the absence of a criminal record, are not merely character evidence but are substantively relevant to the crucial element of predisposition. The decision emphasizes the high burden on the state to prove harmless error, particularly when the excluded evidence is central to the defendant's only theory of defense. This precedent serves as a clear directive to trial courts to permit defendants to present a full defense when claiming entrapment, ensuring the jury can properly weigh whether the defendant was an 'unwary innocent' or a 'wary criminal.'
