State v. Lewis, 629 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Lewis, 629 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Pickett v. State (fladistctapp, 2006-03-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Pickett v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lewis v. State, 597 So.2d 842, 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring), decision quashed, cause remanded, 629 So.2d 102 (Fla.1993); Van Horn, 485 So.2d at 1381 (Schwartz, C.J., dissenting).
discussed Cited "see" Pickett v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lewis v. State, 597 So.2d 842, 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring), decision quashed, cause remanded, 629 So.2d 102 (Fla.1993); Van Horn, 485 So.2d at 1381 (Schwartz, C.J., dissenting).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida
v.
Brian LEWIS
No. 80058.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct 14, 1993.
629 So. 2d 102
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Angelica D. Zayas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner., Kenneth Ronan, Boca Raton, and Joni B. Braunstein, North Miami Beach, for respondent.
Barkett, Grimes, Harding, Kogan, McDonald, Overton, Shaw.
Published
OVERTON, Justice.

This cause is before the Court to review Lewis v. State, 597 So.2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), in which the Third District Court of Appeal determined that the respondent, Brian Lewis, was entrapped as a matter of law based on the objective test for entrapment set forth by this Court in Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

Based on our recent determination in Munoz v. State, 629 So.2d 90 (Fla.1993), that section 777.201, Florida Statutes (1987), abolished the objective test in Cruz, we quash the district court’s decision and remand this cause to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the dictates of our decision in Munoz.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.