Morgan v. State
112 So. 3d 122
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Morgan was convicted at trial of attempted lewd or lascivious exhibition following a sting operation involving a Citrus County detective posing as a mother in a casual encounters ad.
- The ad and dialogue introduced a fictional twelve-year-old daughter by the detective to tempt Morgan into sexual activity, which Morgan hedged about but did not explicitly consent to with the daughter.
- Morgan was 21 years old at the time; he responded to the detective’s ad and discussed possible sexual encounters with the mother, while acknowledging possible involvement of the daughter.
- Morgan faced four counts, including knowingly using a computer to lure a parent to involve a child in illegal conduct, traveling to meet a minor for illegal sexual conduct, attempted lewd or lascivious battery on a minor, and attempted lewd or lascivious exhibition.
- The jury found not guilty on the first three counts but guilty on the attempted lewd or lascivious exhibition count; on appeal, Morgan argued entrapment and other issues, leading to a remand for a new trial on the exhibited count.
- The trial court denied Morgan’s entrapment jury instruction request; the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding error in the denial and also addressing juror-note procedures under Florida Supreme Court rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to entrapment jury instruction | Morgan argues entrapment suggested by the evidence; instruction required. | State contends no entrapment defense instruction warranted by evidence. | Remanded for new trial; instruction error acknowledged. |
| Juror note-taking policy during deliberations | Notes taken by jurors should be allowed and used as memory aids under new rule. | Trial court treated juror notes as evidence, contrary to rule. | Remanded; notes should be permitted and later destroyed after verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Munoz v. State, 629 So.2d 90 (Fla.1993) (entrapment predisposition review; state may dismiss where predisposition shown)
- Worley v. State, 848 So.2d 491 (Fla.5th DCA 2003) (abuse of discretion regarding jury instructions in criminal cases)
- Arthur v. State, 717 So.2d 193 (Fla.5th DCA 1998) (limits on trial court discretion in defense instructions)
- Terwilliger v. State, 535 So.2d 346 (Fla.1st DCA 1988) (threshold for entitlement to entrapment instruction; evidence need not be strong)
- Davis v. State, 937 So.2d 300 (Fla.4th DCA 2006) (fact-specific distinction; lack of entrapment instruction not controlling here)