Kinsey v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Opinion of the Court
STONE, Judge.
We affirm Appellant’s conviction for delivery of cocaine. The cocaine was sold to an undercover officer who was introduced to Appellant by a paid informant. Appellant contends that the means employed by the officer constitutes “objective” entrapment, solely because an informant introduced them, mandating reversal 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) and State v. Hunter, 586 So.2d 319 (Fla.1991).
The only error alleged is the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Cruz v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1985
- State v. HunterSupreme Court of Florida · 1991
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Florida · 1993
- Kelly v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
- Herrera v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jackson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002
- Buigues v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006