North FL’s Highest Court AFFIRMS Heroin Conviction Despite “Reasonable” Entrapment Defense

April 23, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Drug Charges Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that the jury had a sufficient evidentiary basis to find that the defendant was not subjectively entrapped in a heroin sale sting – despite the defendant’s “reasonable” argument that he was entitled to dismissal of the charge due to entrapment.

CASE: Hall v. State, 326 So.3d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)

Charge(s): Sale of Heroin

Outcome: Conviction AFFIRMED – as despite the defendant’s “reasonable” argument that he was entrapped, the jury had a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude he was guilty.

Entrapment in Florida

In Florida, entrapment functions as a total defense to criminal charges. Entrapment occurs when law enforcement uses impermissible tactics to get someone to commit a crime that wouldn’t have otherwise occurred but for the government intervention. For more, click here.

There are two forms of entrapment recognized under Florida law – objective and subjective. The difference between these is critical to understand, as this is key to devising defensive strategy in cases where entrapment may have occurred.

Objective entrapment occurs when law enforcement acts so egregiously in manufacturing (e.g. “bringing about”) a crime, that the charges against the defendant must be dismissed because it would be a violation of their due process rights to prosecute them. This is the case even if the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime AND is guilty of it. For more, click here.

Florida courts are usually reluctant to rule a defendant was objectively entrapped. However, some examples of cases in which objective entrapment has been found include:

• 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))

• 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))

Unlike subjective entrapment, objective entrapment is only argued as a matter of law (e.g. to the judge). Since it is not a question for the jury, objective entrapment CAN ONLY BE MOVED for in a motion to dismiss (pretrial) or a motion for judgment of acquittal at trial. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019)

Moreover, some may believe that objective entrapment occurs simply because law enforcement has ensnared someone in a sting. But this is not the case. Florida law gives broad discretion to law enforcement when running “sting operations” – so long as they do not engage in unlawful or extremely unethical activity that violates the defendant’s due process rights. For more, click here.

The second form of entrapment, which is usually considered the “easier” one to prove in Florida, is subjective entrapment. This occurs when law enforcement induces a non-predisposed person to commit a crime. Florida’s subjective entrapment law is codified under Fla. Stat. 777.201 – and in Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993), a Florida Supreme Court decision.

An advantage of subjective entrapment is that unlike objective entrapment, it can be argued as a matter of law (e.g. to the trial judge) AND to the jury. This gives the defendant multiple “layers” of insulation from conviction that do not exist with objective entrapment.

What must be proven if subjective entrapment is used as a defense? For a subjective entrapment defense to succeed, a defendant must first prove by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence that their actions were the product of law enforcement inducement. Gennette v. State, 124 So.3d 273 (Fla 1st DCA 2013) 

Critically, this does NOT simply mean the police were “involved” in making the alleged crime(s) happen. The police must have relied upon impermissible tactics, “such as persuasion, fraudulent representations, threats, coercive tactics, harassment, promises of reward, or pleas based on need, sympathy or friendship.” State v. Henderson, 955 So.2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)

If the defendant proves by a majority (e.g. 51% or more) of the evidence that their conduct was the product of any of the above inducement tactics, the burden shifts to the State to prove that the defendant was PREDISPOSED to commit the underlying offense(s) beyond a reasonable doubt. 

If a defendant is predisposed, this means that they were ready and willing, without persuasion, to commit the charged offense(s). Law enforcement/prosecutors can use evidence of a defendant’s criminal history (so long as it is relevant to the charge) and, in some cases, a defendant’s “ready acquiescence” to criminal activity. State v. Lopez-Garcia, 356 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2022)

If inducement is shown to have occurred by a preponderance of the evidence and the State can’t prove predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is entitled to DISMISSAL of the charges as a matter of law if no reasonable jury could conclude differently (e.g. find a defendant wasn’t induced/was predisposed). Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993)

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

In some cases, a defendant will argue subjective entrapment at trial (to the jury) – and file both a pretrial motion to dismiss as well as motions for judgment of acquittal. Depending on the facts of the case, such motions/arguments can be likely to succeed, or likely to fail.

One case heard by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court) was a “close call.” In that case, the defendant was arrested and charged with trafficking in heroin. He was ultimately convicted after his motions to dismiss and for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) at trial were DENIED by the judge.

Despite the defendant’s claim that he was induced to act by a confidential informant and was not predisposed to commit the charged crime, the jury concluded he was not subjectively entrapped. 

He appealed his conviction as a matter of law, asserting that the judge erred as a matter of law by denying his MJOA at trial. Because no reasonable jury could have found that he was not induced and was predisposed to sell heroin, the defendant urged the 1st DCA to reverse his conviction.

Acknowledging the defendant’s argument as “reasonable,” the 1st DCA nevertheless affirmed his conviction. But why?

Let’s take a look at the case – Hall v. State, 326 So.3d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) – and discuss what it means for those in Florida arguing subjective entrapment.

KEY CASE: Hall v. State, 326 So.3d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)

In Hall, the defendant (Hall) was arrested and charged with the sale of heroin. He was convicted at trial after arguing that he was subjectively entrapped. At trial, the following was revealed:

• Law enforcement used a confidential informant and the “lure” of a large sum of money to get him to sell heroin
• Hall was unemployed and looking to make money at the time
• Though he was a heroin addict, he did not have a history of dealing
• Hall initially declined the confidential informant’s request that he sell an ounce of heroin
• However, upon being contacted a second time, Hall said he would attempt to obtain the requested amount
• By the third contact, Hall was working with his heroin supplier to obtain the requested drugs for the confidential informant
• Video of the eventual controlled buy showed Hall heavily using drug lingo, discussing the price of a “point” (1/10 of a gram) in other jurisdictions
• He was ultimately arrested and charged because of the sale

Appealing his conviction to the 1st DCA, Hall argued that the trial judge erred as a matter of law when he DENIED Hall’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. Specifically, Hall asserted that:

• He had no history of selling heroin
• He had never possessed more heroin than was necessary for his “personal use”
• He was unemployed, so the State took advantage of him
• He had no prior felony convictions
• Thus, there was no evidence that he was PREDISPOSED to commit the charged crime (selling heroin) as opposed to simply using it before he was induced by the informant to engage in the sale

Though the 1st DCA acknowledged Hall’s argument was reasonable, it nevertheless AFFIRMED his conviction because a reasonable jury could have concluded based on the evidence that he was indeed predisposed to sell heroin. The 1st DCA wrote:

“Hall contends the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was no evidence he had any predisposition to traffic in heroin. Hall testified he was a heroin user and addict, not a dealer. He was unemployed and looking to make some money. He had never possessed more than a small amount of heroin for personal use, and he had only prior misdemeanor convictions. Highlighting this evidence, Hall makes a reasonable argument that his actions stemmed solely from the significant financial inducement offered by the government’s confidential informant.”

“But this ignores other evidence that could lead a reasonable person to arrive at a different conclusion. Although Hall declined the confidential informant’s initial request to sell an ounce of heroin, upon being contacted a second time, Hall said he would try to get the requested amount. By the third contact, Hall and the informant discussed arranging a meeting place, and Hall worked with his regular heroin supplier to obtain the requested amount. The State also showed a videorecording of the arranged buy. In it, Hall sits in a car with the confidential informant and an undercover investigator as they wait for the supplier to arrive with the heroin. After mentioning he has a friend in Alabama who is selling heroin for $50 a “point”—one-tenth of a gram—Hall complains that “I can’t even do $30, $35 around here.” 

“This comment, along with others, conveyed an understanding of the terminology and other basics of the heroin trade. At minimum, this evidence conflicted with Hall’s assertion that he had never sold heroin and could lead a reasonable person to infer that Hall did have a predisposition to commit trafficking. Because “reasonable persons could draw different conclusions” as to whether the government subjectively entrapped Hall, the trial court properly denied Hall’s motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm Hall’s judgment and sentence. Affirmed.”

In essence, the 1st DCA did not disagree with Hall that there were potential questions regarding the strength of the evidence against him. However, the 1st DCA found that there was ENOUGH evidence of predisposition to affirm the trial judge’s denial of the MJOA/the jury’s verdict.

In sum, Hall v. State, 326 So.3d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding subjective entrapment. The 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court) found that:

• Hall was clearly induced to act by the confidential informant
• Though the evidence of predisposition was “mixed,” there was a sufficient amount for a jury to reasonably conclude that the State had met the burden of proof on the issue
• Hall agreed to sell the heroin by his second contact with the confidential informant and spoke like a “drug dealer” during the recorded controlled buy that led to his arrest
• Though Hall’s argument regarding his lack of predisposition was “reasonable,” the State presented a sufficient amount of evidence for the jury to make the opposite finding – so his conviction was AFFIRMED

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Hall v. State, 326 So.3d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), as it shows state courts are reluctant to reverse convictions in entrapment cases – so long as the jury could REASONABLY CONCLUDE the defendant was not entrapped.

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