Can Friends or Family Testify to Lack of Predisposition in Florida Entrapment Cases?

February 9, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that testimony of a defendant’s family members in a traveling to meet a minor case, corroborating that the defendant had been abused and would not target minors for sex, was irrelevant to determining predisposition when the defendant claimed entrapment.

In Florida, solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) and traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) are very serious felony offenses. Solicitation of a minor (or person believed to be a minor) is a third-degree felony (up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine), while traveling to meet a minor is a second-degree felony (up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine).

For someone to be guilty of solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)), the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant knowingly used a computer, online service, internet service, local bulletin board service or any device capable of electronic data transmission
• The defendant used the device to seduce, solicit, lure or entice a minor (under 18) or person believed to be a minor (e.g. undercover law enforcement) to engage in sexual activity (or attempted to do so)

For someone to be guilty of traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity, the State must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)):

• The defendant knowingly used a computer, online service, internet service, local bulletin board service or any device capable of electronic data transmission
• The defendant used the device to seduce, solicit, lure or entice a minor (under 18) or person believed to be a minor to engage in sexual activity (or attempted to do so)
• After that solicitation, the defendant then traveled or attempted to travel within Florida to meet the minor (or person believed to be a minor) to engage in unlawful sexual activity

You may notice that the elements of online solicitation are entirely subsumed by the elements of traveling to meet a minor. This means convictions for both offenses that arise from the same course of conduct violate a defendant’s protection against double jeopardy – requiring reversal of the solicitation conviction. To learn more about this, click here.

If someone is accused of solicitation and traveling to meet someone who was not an actual minor (e.g. undercover law enforcement officer), a potential defense is entrapment. There are two types of entrapment under Florida law – objective entrapment and subjective entrapment.

Objective entrapment (also known as due process entrapment) occurs when law enforcement action is so egregious, that prosecuting the defendant (regardless of their guilt) would violate their constitutional right to due process. Unlike subjective entrapment, objective entrapment does not focus on a defendant’s predisposition to act unlawfully (in fact, this isn’t even relevant).

Though objective entrapment is considered “harder to prove” than subjective entrapment (courts are more reluctant to dismiss on objective entrapment grounds), examples of cases where courts have found objective entrapment to have occurred in Florida include:

• Law enforcement manufactures drugs at the police station to sell to people on the street while undercover, only to arrest people when they try to buy them (State v. Williams, 623 So.2d 462, 466 (Fla. 1993))
• A police task force sends child pornography through the mail to arrest someone for possessing it (Farley v. State, 848 So.2d 393, 397-98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003))
• A law enforcement officer or informant enters a sexual relationship with the defendant to get them to act criminally (Madera v. State, 943 So.2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006))

The second type of entrapment – subjective entrapment – is codified under Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and Fla. Stat. 777.201. Also known as statutory entrapment, this occurs when law enforcement induces a non-predisposed defendant (e.g. person who is not ready and willing to act unlawfully) to commit a crime.

Inducement does not occur every time law enforcement conducts a sting operation – it requires the use of specific, prohibited tactics. Under Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and its progeny, examples of inducement may include:

• Coaxing, persuasion, cajoling and trickery
• Promises of friendship, monetary gain or affection
• Badgering or coercion 

Note: Objective entrapment must be moved for pretrial, and dismissal can only occur as a matter of law (e.g. by the judge). Subjective entrapment can be argued before trial (a motion to dismiss) or as a trial defense if a pretrial motion to dismiss fails (to the jury). 

If a defendant establishes that they were impermissibly induced by police by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence, the burden shifts to the State to prove the defendant was predisposed to commit the underlying offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Put simply, this means the State must show the defendant was “ready and willing, without persuasion” to commit the crime(s).

Important: To learn more about inducement for entrapment purposes, click here. To learn more about predisposition, click here.

Sometimes, a defendant will use subjective entrapment as a trial defense. If they establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they were induced to act unlawfully, and the State cannot show predisposition, the jury must return a verdict of not guilty (by entrapment).

Since even a small amount of evidence of a defendant’s lack of predisposition can defeat the State’s case once inducement is shown, a key question is – what kind of proof of the defendant’s lack of predisposition is admissible in court? Specifically, can the defendant bring in “character witnesses” (e.g. family/friends) to testify as to their lack of predisposition?

The answer to this second question – according to Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court (1st DCA) – is no. Let’s look at the case where the 1st DCA reached this conclusion – Coffey v. State, 228 So.3d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) – and discuss what it means for defendants rebutting predisposition when subjective entrapment is argued.

KEY CASE: Coffey v. State, 228 So.3d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)

In Coffey, the defendant (Coffey) was charged with one count of solicitation of a minor through a person believed to be a parent or guardian (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)(b)), unlawful use of a two-way communications device (Fla. Stat. 934.215), and traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)). He was convicted on all counts.

Note: Pursuant to Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018), the Florida Supreme Court vacated Coffey’s solicitation and unlawful use convictions on appeal. However, the entrapment analysis discussed in the case remains good law in Tallahassee and North Florida.

At trial, it was revealed that Coffey responded to a web advertisement posted by an undercover law enforcement officer – who posed as a “mother looking for just the right mature male to help with a family problem.” According to the 1st DCA, the following sequence of events took place (Coffey is the appellant):

“After learning on November 14 that the “mother” wanted her daughter to “be with a man” for religious reasons, on November 15, the appellant emailed again, asked for a picture of the daughter, and was told that the girl was twelve years old. A few hours later, the appellant emailed his understanding was that he would have sex with the twelve-year-old. In the early morning hours of November 16, the appellant emailed, “What happens now?” The “mother” did not respond until November 17, after which the appellant emailed to request the mother’s phone number to arrange a meeting. On November 17 at around 9 a.m., the appellant called the “mother” at the phone number she had provided, he described the sexual acts he would perform on the girl, and they arranged a meeting at a gas station after 2:00 p.m. that day. Right after the phone call ended, the appellant texted the “mother” and during the exchange, asked for a picture of the girl, which request was denied. The texting continued over the next several hours, and the two made plans to meet at the gas station later that day where the appellant was arrested.”

At his trial, Coffey said he was subjectively entrapped. To rebut predisposition, Coffey testified that it was not his intent to have sex with the (fictional) child upon his arrival. He disclosed to the jury that he would never do so (e.g. was not predisposed to target minors for sex) because he was sexually abused as a child in foster care.

After concluding his testimony, Coffey attempted to call his siblings as witnesses to discuss the details of the alleged abuse. But the State objected to this, arguing that it was improper character evidence that did not actually provide any evidence as to the defendant’s predisposition (or lack thereof).

The trial judge allowed Coffey to proffer the testimony of his sister (e.g. have her testify outside the presence of the jury for the record), but did not introduce this into evidence at Coffey’s trial. The jury found Coffey guilty of all charges, rejecting his subjective entrapment defense.

On appeal, Coffey argued the trial judge erred as a matter of law by excluding the testimony of his siblings. Coffey also claimed that he was objectively entrapped by law enforcement’s use of a Craigslist advertisement to target him.

The 1st DCA disagreed with Coffey and affirmed his convictions. Addressing the issue of the trial judge’s failure to allow additional testimony regarding the sexual abuse Coffey allegedly endured, the 1st DCA found this was not relevant to Coffey’s predisposition (e.g. the abuse did not preclude him from targeting minors):

“The trial court, having allowed the appellant to offer unobjected-to testimony of his history of being sexually abused, acted well within its discretion when it determined that further testimony into the nature of the abuse was needlessly cumulative and likely to inflame the emotions of jurors and possibly distract them from the relevant legal issues. The appellant was able to argue his theory of defense. The proffered testimony from his sister was not probative to the appellant’s predisposition as she only reiterated the appellant’s past sexual abuse and provided her opinion that he was a good father and uncle. Trial courts have broad discretion to admit or exclude relevant evidence. Discretion is abused when “the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” White v. State, 817 So.2d 799, 806 (Fla. 2002). The trial court did not abuse its discretion…”

Moreover, the 1st DCA rejected Coffey’s claim that law enforcement’s use of advertisements on Craigslist (like the one he responded to) constituted objective entrapment in violation of his due process rights. Finding that Coffey was neither subjectively nor objectively entrapped, the 1st DCA wrote:

“The appellant argues that he was induced to solicit because the ad was posted in an adult dating section of Craigslist and because the undercover agent brought up the suggestion that her daughter needed to lose her virginity for religious reasons. However, the appellant seems to be confusing inducement with invitation, and his argument fails to take into account the numerous instances wherein the courts of this state have made just such a distinction. See e.g., Cantrell v. State, 132 So.3d 931, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), decision quashed on other grounds by, Cantrell v. State, 2016 WL 1669260 (Fla. 2016). The appellant also argues that he was objectively entrapped, i.e., that the undercover agent’s conduct was so outrageous as to rise to the level of offending the due process protections of Article 1, section 9, of the Florida Constitution. The above analysis applies here equally as well. The appellant was not targeted; he initiated contact, and was not induced, but acted upon an invitation. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss.”

In sum, Coffey v. State, 228 So.3d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) marks a significant development in Florida case law on the legal issue of entrapment in traveling and solicitation of a minor cases – and in particular, the type of evidence admissible to rebut predisposition to act criminally. Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal found that:

• Testimony as to the alleged abuse Coffey endured while a child in foster care was not relevant to show a lack of predisposition to target minors
• Even if predisposition had not existed, law enforcement did not impermissibly induce Coffey to act – so his subjective entrapment defense failed as a matter of law
• Coffey was not objectively entrapped merely because law enforcement posted a Craigslist ad that he responded to
• Because he was not entrapped, his convictions were affirmed (though the solicitation and unlawful use convictions were later reversed on double jeopardy grounds)

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Coffey v. State, 228 So.3d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), as it provides key insight on the issue of what evidence can be used to counter State claims of “predisposition” on the part of the defendant when an entrapment defense is used.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case and has a potential entrapment defense, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting criminal charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share