Switch to ADA Accessible Website
Orlando Criminal Lawyer

Entrapment As A Defense To Drug Charges


When the police improperly induce a defendant to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed, that is considered entrapment. Under Florida law, both objective and subjective entrapment are possible affirmative defenses to a criminal charge. Objective entrapment focuses on egregious conduct by law enforcement. Subjective entrapment, in contrast, involves an assessment of the defendant’s “predisposition” to commit a particular crime. As an affirmative defense, the defendant bears the burden of proving subjective entrapment by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is lower than the standard required for conviction, i.e., “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Florida Court Rejects Subjective Entrapment Defense in Heroin Trafficking Case

The Florida First District Court of Appeal recently examined a case involving the use of subjective entrapment as a defense. In Hall v. State, law enforcement used a confidential informant to lure the defendant into participating in a drug deal. Prosecutors later charged the defendant with drug trafficking in heroin. At trial, the defense argued subjective entrapment.

The defendant testified that while he used heroin, he was not a dealer. Indeed, he never possessed more heroin than necessary for his personal use. He also had no prior felony record. But at the time of his arrest, he was unemployed, and he said that the confidential informant’s offer of money was what convinced him to participate in the drug deal.

The jury heard other evidence, however, suggesting the defendant was more cognizant of the heroin trade than he let on. For instance, prosecutors showed the jury a surveillance recording of the deal arranged between the confidential informant and the defendant. During this meeting, the defendant demonstrated knowledge of the local “market” prices for heroin and what the court later described as “other basics of the heroin trade.”

The jury ultimately rejected the subjective entrapment defense and found the defendant guilty. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial judge should have acquitted him as a matter of law because he proved subjective entrapment. The First District disagreed and upheld the defendant’s conviction. The appellate court said the trial judge properly allowed the jury to decide if the defendant met his burden of proof with respect to the entrapment defense. Critically, that included resolving the disputed evidence with respect to the defendant’s “predisposition,” or lack thereof, to commit the alleged crime. If there had been no factual dispute, the First District said, then it would have been proper for the judge to decide the issue as a matter of law.

Contact Orlando Criminal Defense Attorney Jose Baez Today

This decision should not be read to mean that an entrapment defense can never succeed. But you have to understand going into a trial that merely arguing, “The police set me up!” is not going to get you off. The use of confidential informants and arranged buys are quite common in drug cases. That is why you need to work with an experienced Orlando drug crimes lawyer when facing serious charges like trafficking. Contact the Baez Law Firm today to schedule a free consultation with a member of our criminal defense team.



  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Miami Office

1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1410
Miami, FL 33131
Office: 305-999-5100
Fax: 305-999-5111

Orlando Office

250 N Orange Ave, Suite 750
Orlando, FL 32801
Office: 407-705-2626
Fax: 407-705-2625

Email Us

Fields Marked * Are required

DISCLAIMER: Completing and submitting this form or otherwise merely contacting The Baez Law Firm or any individual at the firm will not establish an attorney/client relationship. Our firm cannot represent you until we determine that there would be no conflict of interest and that we are otherwise able to accept representation of your case. Please do not send any information or documents until a formal attorney/client relationship has been established through an interview with an attorney and you have been given authorization in the form of an engagement letter with The Baez Law Firm. Any information or documents sent via this form or otherwise prior to your receipt of an engagement letter will not be treated as confidences, secrets, or protected information of any nature. Submitting information regarding your potential case will not bar The Baez Law Firm from representing or continuing to represent a person or entity whose interest are adverse to your in condition with your case.

protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms
Please review the highlighted fields. They are required.
DISCLAIMER: This website contains information about The Baez Law Firm that includes testimonial statements from persons who are familiar with the firm's services. The testimonials shown are not necessarily representative of every person's experience with us. Testimonials from every client are not provided. As no two situations or persons are identical, the facts and circumstances of your situation may differ from those for which testimonials are shown. This website also includes information about some of the past results that we have obtained for our clients. Not all results are provided, and the results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by us. No two situation are exactly alike; every person's situation is unique and the outcome for each person depends on the individual facts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
MileMark Media - Practice Growth Solutions

© 2015 - 2024 Baez Law Firm. All rights reserved.
This law firm website and legal marketing are managed by MileMark Media.

Contact Form Tab Contact Form Tab