Smith v. State
468 So. 2d 984, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 261, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3316
Opinion
We accepted jurisdiction in this case because of conflict with State v. Casper, 417 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. The facts are legally indistinguishable from those in Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.1985). As we find in Cruz, the decoy ruse constituted entrapment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we quash the opinion of the district court, Smith v. State, 441 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and remand for action consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith v. State, 468 So. 2d 984, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 261, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3316 (Fla. 1985).
468 So. 2d 984 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cruz v. State
465 So. 2d 516 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
State v. Casper
417 So. 2d 263 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Smith v. State
441 So. 2d 1162 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)