State v. Ramos
632 So.2d 1078, 1994 WL 51829 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida's subjective test for entrapment, a court may find entrapment as a matter of law and dismiss charges if the undisputed facts show that a government agent induced the crime and the defendant was not predisposed to commit it. The issue does not need to be submitted to a jury when the factual issues regarding inducement and predisposition are not in dispute.
Facts:
- A confidential informant, acting as a government agent, targeted Lazaro Diaz for a drug transaction.
- The confidential informant contacted Diaz approximately fifteen or sixteen times to persuade him to get involved in the drug transaction.
- Before the informant's involvement, law enforcement had no history, information, or intelligence suggesting Diaz was involved in any narcotics activities or 'drug rip-offs'.
- As a result of the informant's repeated contacts, Diaz became involved in the drug transaction scheme.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Lazaro Diaz in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court granted Diaz's motion and entered an order dismissing the charges against him on the grounds of entrapment.
- The State, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
- The District Court of Appeal initially affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the charges against Diaz (appellee).
- The Florida Supreme Court then quashed the appellate court's decision regarding Diaz and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a new precedent, Munoz v. State.
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 establish entrapment as a matter of law when a government informant repeatedly contacts the defendant to induce participation in a crime, and the defendant has no known prior history of similar criminal activity, and these facts are undisputed?
Opinions:
Per curiam - Per Curiam
Yes, a defendant establishes entrapment as a matter of law under these circumstances. The court applied the two-part subjective test for entrapment from Munoz v. State. First, the court found Diaz met his burden of proving government inducement, as shown by the unrebutted evidence that the informant contacted him fifteen or sixteen times. Second, because inducement was established, the inquiry shifted to predisposition. Diaz met his burden of establishing a lack of predisposition, evidenced by his clean record and the informant's persistence. The State then failed to rebut this evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that while the entrapment issue is typically for the jury, a trial judge has the authority to rule on it as a matter of law when the underlying facts of inducement and predisposition are not in dispute.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the procedural application of Florida's statutory subjective entrapment defense following the landmark Munoz v. State case. It affirms that while entrapment is generally a question for the jury, trial courts can dismiss charges as a matter of law where the facts supporting entrapment are undisputed. The ruling emphasizes that overwhelming government inducement coupled with a defendant's clear lack of predisposition can be sufficient to establish entrapment without a trial. This serves as a judicial check on law enforcement overreach and solidifies the judge's role in deciding the issue when the factual record is one-sided.
