State v. Munoz
This text of 586 So. 2d 515 (State v. Munoz) 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.
Opinion
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Manuel MUNOZ, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Laura Rush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.
Alvin L. Peters of McCauley & Peters, Panama City, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appeals from a final order dismissing an information against Manuel Munoz. The trial judge dismissed the charge finding that the Florida Supreme Court's two-prong test for entrapment set forth in Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla. 1985), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985), constituted binding precedent as to this case. The state asserts that the enactment of section 777.201, Florida Statutes (1987), abolished the objective entrapment test as set forth in Cruz, supra. For the reasons set forth in Gonzalez v. State, 571 So.2d 1346 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990), and Krajewski v. State, ___ So.2d ___, 16 F.L.W. D692 (Fla. 4th DCA March 13, 1991), we accept the arguments of the state and reverse the decision of the trial court.
SHIVERS and WOLF, JJ., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
586 So. 2d 515, 1991 WL 204608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-munoz-fladistctapp-1991.