Nadell v. State

Appellant, defendant below, had raised the affirmative defense of entrapment at his non-jury trial. He was convicted of the crimes of: sale of marijuana and possession of marijuana. By this appeal, he contends that a preponderance of the evidence at trial established the defense of entrapment, and therefore, the court erred in not entering a judgment of acquittal or granting a new trial.

An accurate summation of the defense of entrapment is found in Langford v. State, 111 Fla. 506, 149 So. 570, wherein the court stated:

“In determining whether or not an entrapment may be sufficient to…