midpage

Smith v. StateSmith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida
Mar 7, 1991
No. 90-408
Versions:575 So. 2d 776
1991 WL 27501
1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1798
PER CURIAM.

The appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for Judgment of Acquittal based upon the defense of entrapment as a matter of law. We disagree. Entrapment as a matter of law does not exist where police activity (1) has as its end the interruption of a specific ongoing criminal activity, and (2) utilizes means reasonably tailored to apprehend those involved in [the ongoing] criminal *777activity. Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985). The facts of this case clearly establish that both prongs of the Cruz test were met.

AFFIRMED.

COWART and GRIFFIN, JJ., and ANTOON, J., II, Associate Judge, concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Smith v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Mar 7, 1991
Citations: 575 So. 2d 776; 1991 WL 27501; 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1798; No. 90-408
Docket Number: No. 90-408
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
Log In