State v. Henderson
2007 WL 1263999, 955 So. 2d 1193 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government agent's act of initiating contact with a past acquaintance after a multi-year lapse in communication to arrange a narcotics transaction is, by itself, insufficient to constitute inducement for a subjective entrapment defense.
Facts:
- In the mid-1990s, Matthew Henderson and Ruben Jaramillo worked together at a restaurant.
- During that period and shortly thereafter, Jaramillo occasionally sold drugs to Henderson.
- The last contact between the two men occurred around 1998 or 1999, when Jaramillo purchased methamphetamine from Henderson.
- In February 2004, Jaramillo, after being arrested for cocaine trafficking, agreed to work as a confidential informant for the Sunrise Police Department.
- Jaramillo provided police with a list of potential drug sales targets from his past, which included Henderson's name.
- Acting as an informant, Jaramillo placed a series of calls to Henderson to arrange the purchase of methamphetamine.
- On February 19, 2004, Henderson delivered methamphetamine to Jaramillo.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Matthew Henderson with trafficking in methamphetamine in the trial court.
- Henderson filed a sworn motion to dismiss the charge based on the affirmative defense of subjective entrapment.
- The State filed a traverse in response to Henderson's motion.
- The trial court granted Henderson's motion to dismiss.
- The State of Florida, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order of dismissal 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 a government informant's act of contacting a past acquaintance after a five-to-six-year-long gap to arrange a drug purchase, without any additional persuasion, threats, or coercion, constitute 'inducement' sufficient to support a subjective entrapment defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Stevenson, C.J.
No. A defendant fails to establish inducement for an entrapment defense when the only supporting fact is that a government informant initiated contact to arrange a drug deal after a five-to-six-year period of no contact. The court reasoned that 'inducement' requires evidence of persuasion, fraudulent representations, threats, coercive tactics, harassment, or pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship. The record in this case, consisting of Henderson's motion and the State's traverse, demonstrated none of these methods. Simply re-establishing contact with a past acquaintance to provide an opportunity to commit a crime does not rise to the level of inducement. Because the defendant bears the burden of proving inducement and failed to do so, his subjective entrapment defense fails at the first step.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for establishing the 'inducement' element of the subjective entrapment defense in Florida. It establishes that merely providing the opportunity to commit a crime, even by seeking out a target after a long period of no contact, is not legally sufficient for an entrapment claim. The ruling reinforces that the focus of the inducement inquiry is on the government's methods, requiring proof of affirmative persuasion or pressure, not just initiation of contact. This makes it more difficult for defendants with a past history of similar criminal activity to claim they were entrapped simply because the government made the first move.
