State v. Aldrich

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Aldrich

448 So. 2d 1254, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13150

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1701

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 448 So. 2d 1254 (State v. Aldrich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Aldrich, 448 So. 2d 1254, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13150 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

LETTS, Judge.

The defendant, claiming entrapment, filed a sworn motion to dismiss an information charging trafficking in cannabis in excess of one hundred pounds. The State filed a sworn traverse and presented testimony pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d) but the court nonetheless dismissed the information. We reverse.

We can dispose of this particular case easily. The State’s accompanying testimony indicated the defendants’ ready acquiescence in the commission of the crime thus rendering it error to hold that the defendants were, as a matter of law, entrapped, because the evidence as to any entrapment was far from clear and convincing.¹ State v. Casper, 417 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LETTS, Judge.

The defendant, claiming entrapment, filed a sworn motion to dismiss an information charging trafficking in cannabis in excess of one hundred pounds. The State filed a sworn traverse and presented testimony pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d) but the court nonetheless dismissed the information. We reverse.

We can dispose of this particular case easily. The State’s accompanying testimony indicated the defendants’ ready acquiescence in the commission of the crime thus rendering it error to hold that the defendants were, as a matter of law, entrapped, because the evidence as to any entrapment was far from clear and convincing.¹ State v. Casper, 417 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 So. 2d 1254, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-aldrich-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack