State v. Thompson

625 So. 2d 128, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10536, 1993 WL 409981
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 18, 1993·No. No. 92-922·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

WOLF, Judge.

The state appeals the order of the trial court which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Because we find that the trial court mistakenly found this case to be controlled by State v. Glosson, 462 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1985), we reverse.

The facts in this case do not establish that the confidential informant’s fee was contingent upon trial testimony or a successful conviction, and thus, State v. Glosson is inapplicable. Furthermore, the facts as outlined in the defendant’s motion to dismiss do not support a finding of objective entrapment, pursuant to Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985). We, therefore, reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

State v. Thompson, 625 So. 2d 128, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10536, 1993 WL 409981 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

625 So. 2d 128 (State v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Prince v. State
638 So. 2d 1022 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
POLARIS PUBLIC INCOME v. Einhorn
625 So. 2d 128 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)