Case Name: Eugene Edward MORRIS a/k/a Mercury Morris a/k/a Gene Morris, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-06-05
Citations: 456 So. 2d 471
Docket Number: No. 83-198
Parties: Eugene Edward MORRIS a/k/a Mercury Morris a/k/a Gene Morris, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 456
Pages: 471–488

Head Matter:
Eugene Edward MORRIS a/k/a Mercury Morris a/k/a Gene Morris, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 83-198.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 5, 1984.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 9, 1984.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Highsmith, Strauss & Glatzer and Philip E. Glatzer and Ronald I. Strauss; Gel-ber, Glass, Durant, Canal & Pineiro and N. Joseph Durant, Sp. Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn Snur-kowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Janet Reno, State Atty., and Ira N. Loewy and Gregory Victor, Asst. State Attys., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
BASKIN, Judge.
Defendant Eugene Edward ("Mercury") Morris was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, trafficking in cocaine, and two counts of possession of cocaine in violation of sections 777.04, 893.135, and 893.-13(1), Florida Statutes (1981). He was sentenced to a term of twenty years imprisonment with a mandatory fifteen year period of incarceration pursuant to section 893.-135(l)(b)(3). Finding no reversible error raised by the points on appeal, we affirm.
The events leading to this appeal began to unfold in the summer of 1982 when Fred Donaldson, a friend who turned confidential informant, did some gardening for Morris at his home. At that time Donaldson was on probation for the commission of aggravated battery and had been ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,500. In an alleged effort to make the restitution, Donaldson tried unsuccessfully to collect the money Morris owed him for gardening services. Believing that Morris intentionally failed to pay his debt in order to have Donaldson sent back to jail, Donaldson called the police to report that he had information concerning Morris's involvement with the use and sale of cocaine. After Donaldson's first call, chief investigator Havens conducted a preliminary investigation of Morris. The investigation disclosed no record of cocaine use or sale in any local, state or federal law enforcement agency. A few days later, Donaldson contacted Havens again to advise him that Morris was expecting a shipment of cocaine and that Morris was willing to meet Donaldson's friend "Joe" to "set up a deal." In two subsequent telephone calls, Donaldson told Havens that Morris had received a large quantity of cocaine.
To verify this information, Havens arranged to have Donaldson make a recorded "controlled call" from the state attorney's office to Morris at his home on August 16, 1982. In this first recorded telephone conversation, admitted into evidence at trial, Morris demonstrated a willingness to enter into a drug deal with Donaldson's purported friend Joe. They arranged to meet at Dadeland Mall parking lot. During several ensuing meetings, Donaldson introduced undercover agent Joe Brinson to Morris as Donaldson's drug dealer friend Joe from New York, and Brinson negotiated with Morris to purchase a quantity of cocaine. The monitored conversations of these meetings, transmitted through a body bug worn by agent Brinson, were admitted into evidence at trial. The tapes of these encounters reveal that Brinson and Morris negotiated the 'price, quantity and manner of delivery of the cocaine, and on one occasion, Morris gave Brinson a small quantity of cocaine as a sample. Negotiations between Brinson and Morris continued the following day and evening of August 17, during which time Brinson and Morris spoke together both in person and over the telephone. Three of these conversations were monitored and tape recorded, but the tapes of only two telephone conversations were admitted into evidence. The trial court suppressed the third tape recording of a face-to-face conversation between Morris and Brinson because it was made illegally inside Morris's home. A final monitored and tape recorded conversation between Morris and Brinson took place the morning of August 18. During this con versation, admitted into evidence at trial, Morris and Brinson agreed to meet at Morris's house later that day. This conversation served as the basis for the issuance of a warrant to search Morris's home and for a court order authorizing the agent to monitor and record conversations inside Morris's home in accordance with State v. Sar-miento, 397 So.2d 643 (Fla.1981). Although the Sarmiento order specifically provided that the body bug which would record the conversations inside Morris's home was to be placed on agent Brinson, the monitoring device was placed on Donaldson. As a result, these recorded conversations were suppressed by the trial court. The court ruled that the police acted improperly in transferring the body bug to Donaldson.
The search produced a scale which was introduced at trial. The half-kilogram of cocaine, which formed the basis for the trafficking charge, was delivered to Morris's home by dealer and co-defendant Vincent Cord. In the scenario culminating in Morris's arrest, Cord arrived at Morris's home and gave Morris a package of cocaine. Morris then weighed the contents and handed the cocaine to agent Brinson, who carried the bag outside and placed it in the trunk of his own car. When Morris heard police sirens, he retrieved the package from Brinson's car and threw it into the canal behind his house. Agent Havens subsequently recovered the cocaine from the water, and Morris and co-defendants Vincent Cord and Edgar Kulins were placed under arrest.
Co-defendant Cord pled guilty prior to trial. The case proceeded to trial against Morris and Kulins. Kulins pled guilty during trial, leaving only the case against Morris. Morris pled not guilty to all charges: conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, trafficking in cocaine, two counts of sale or delivery of cocaine, and two counts of possession of cocaine. He asserted the affirmative defense of entrapment. The jury acquitted Morris of sale or delivery of cocaine, but found him guilty of the remaining counts. This appeal ensued.
In the several points raised on appeal, Morris argues as grounds for reversal: (1) the court's refusal to suppress evidence and statements obtained by unlawful electronic surveillance; (2) legally inconsistent verdicts; (3) the exclusion of a defense witness who would have testified that a police agent intended to set Morris up; (4) inflammatory remarks by the prosecutor during closing argument; and (5) the imposition of a mandatory sentence. Although we conclude that none of the asserted grounds warrants reversal, we address the major contentions raised by Morris.
We first focus our attention on the excluded testimony. Morris contends that the trial court committed reversible error in excluding the testimony of defense witness Eugene Gotbaum who, according to the proffer, would have stated that he had known informant Fred Donaldson for many years and that several months prior to Morris's arrest, Donaldson told Gotbaum that he (Donaldson) intended to set up Morris. Although it was Donaldson who initially advised the police that Morris was engaged in illicit activities involving drugs, the state did not call Donaldson to testify at trial. When defense counsel sought to present Gene Gotbaum's representation of the absent Donaldson's motives, the court excluded Gotbaum's testimony on the ground that the proffered remarks constituted inadmissible hearsay. Morris contends that Gotbaum's testimony was admissible through the so-called state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule to inform the jury of Donaldson's stated intent to induce or entice Morris to commit the criminal acts charged. Morris maintains that Donaldson's statement was relevant to his entrapment defense and that he should have been permitted to present Donaldson's comments through Gotbaum's testimony, even though Donaldson was not called as a witness.
The state-of-mind exception is contained in section 90.803(3)(a)(l) and (2), Florida Statutes (1981):
The provision of s. 90.802 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(3) Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.—
(a) A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:
1. Prove the declarant's state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action.
2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant, (emphasis supplied)
The state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule permits the admission of extrajudicial statements to show the declar-ant's state of mind at the time the statement is made when it is an issue in the case. See United States v. Brown, 490 F.2d 758 (D.C.Cir.1974); Kennedy v. State, 385 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Van Zant v. State, 372 So.2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In addition, the state-of-mind exception allows the introduction of the declar-ant's statement of future intent to perform an act, if the occurrence or performance of that act is at issue. See Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 12 S.Ct. 909, 36 L.Ed. 706 (1892); United States v. Brown; Clark v. United States, 412 A.2d 21 (D.C.1980); Kennedy; Van Zant. Donaldson's declaration of intent to "set up" Morris does not fall within the ambit of the hearsay exception provided by section 90.-803 because Donaldson's state of mind is not at issue and because it was not disputed, his subsequent conduct requires neither proof nor explanation. Under the subjective test for entrapment adopted by the United States Supreme Court and followed in Florida, two issues arise: (1) whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the type of crime charged and (2) whether the defendant was induced by a government agent to commit the crime charged. See Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976); United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973); Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958); Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932); State v. Dickinson, 370 So.2d 762 (Fla.1979). The subjective approach to the entrapment defense focuses upon the "intent or predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime." Russell, 411 U.S. at 429, 93 S.Ct. at 1641; accord Hampton; Dickinson; State v. Casper, 417 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); State v. Brider, 386 So.2d 818 (Fla.2d DCA), review denied, 392 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1980). Explaining the critical element of predisposition in the application of the entrapment defense, the court in Dupuy v. State, 141 So.2d 825, 826 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 147 So.2d 531 (Fla.1962) stated:
[Ejntrapment is available to those who are instigated, induced or lured by an officer of the law or other person to commit a crime which they had otherwise no intention of committing and, conversely, not available to those with the requisite criminal intent who are merely furnished with the opportunity to commit crime by an officer of the law or other person acting in good faith with the purpose of detecting and preventing crime.
See Dickinson; Lashley v. State, 67 So.2d 648 (Fla.1953).
Explaining the subjective test for entrapment, the Court in Russell 411 U.S. at 438, 93 S.Ct. at 1646 observed:
Sorrells and Sherman both recognize "that the fact that officers or employees of the Government merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution." 287 U.S., at 441, 53 S.Ct., at 212, 356 U.S., at 372, 78 S.Ct., at 820. Nor will the mere fact of deceit defeat a prosecution, see e.g., Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 208-209, 87 S.Ct. 424, 425-427, 17 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966), for there are circumstances when the use of deceit is the only practicable law enforcement technique available. It is only when the Government's deception actually implants the criminal design in the mind of the defendant that the defense of entrapment comes into play.
In Sherman 356 U.S. at 372-373, 78 S.Ct. at 821-822 the Court stated:
To determine whether entrapment has been established, a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal. The principles by which the courts are to make this determination were outlined in Sorrells. On the one hand, at trial the accused may examine the conduct of the government agent; and on the other hand, the accused will be subjected to an "appropriate and searching inquiry into his own conduct and predisposition" as bearing on his claim of innocence. (emphasis supplied).
These cases establish the principle that the material issues raised by an entrapment defense are solely the predisposition of the defendant and the conduct of the police. The state of mind at issue in this case is that of the defendant and not that of the police agent. See generally Hampton; Russell; Comment, Causation and Intention in the Entrapment Defense, 28 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 859 (1981); Park, The Entrapment Controversy, 60 Minn.L.Rev. 168 (1976).
Gotbaum's testimony was offered to prove Donaldson's intent to set up Morris. It constituted inadmissible hearsay because Donaldson's intent was not at issue and thus, did not become admissible under the aegis of the statutory exception. In addition, because there was no question that Donaldson notified the police of Morris's activities, Donaldson's conduct was not disputed and, accordingly, his statement was not relevant. Although his motive might have been relevant had it been necessary to prove whether Donaldson informed police, under the posture of the evidence presented at trial, the trial court properly excluded Gotbaum's testimony.
We now turn to the remaining points on appeal. Morris asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the monitored and tape-recorded telephone conversations emanating from his home and obtained without a warrant. The phone calls in question were initiated by a consenting police agent from , a telephone outside Morris's home to a phone inside his home and were recorded by means of an induction coil attached to the outside phone. The warrantless interceptions were made pursuant to section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), which provides:
It is lawful under this chapter for a law enforcement officer or a person aet- ing under the direction of a law enforcement officer to intercept a wire or oral communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.
Morris contends that despite the authorization of the statutory consent provision, the warrantless interception and recording of telephone calls from government agents to Morris at his residence were unconstitutional intrusions into the home in violation of Article I, section 12, Florida Constitution (1968). The Florida Supreme Court recently decided this issue adversely to appellant in State v. Williams, 443 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1983), in which the court, finding that such an interception does not contravene Article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, stated:
Here the conversation was by telephone and only the target of the investigation was within her home. We decline to characterize this conversation as having been conducted in her home. We therefore hold that Sarmiento does not apply and, accordingly, that section 934.-03(2)(c) does. Accord State v. Vanyo, 417 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Miller v. State, 411 So.2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 1982); Jacobs v. State, 389 So.2d 1054 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So.2d 778 (Fla.1981); State v. Shaktman, 389 So.2d 1045 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So.2d 779 (Fla.1981).
Williams, 443 So.2d at 954.
We find no merit in Morris's other challenges to the admission of his intercepted conversations.
No reversible error appears in the record in connection with the search warrant which yielded the scale admitted into evidence at trial. Morris contends that the evidence was tainted as fruit of the poisonous tree because the state engaged in war-rantless interceptions and failed to inform Judge Kogan of its activities when it sought issuance of a search warrant. Although we condemn the concealment of pertinent facts from the trial court, we believe that the trial judge was apprised of facts sufficient to establish probable cause to issue the search warrant.
Morris next contends that by returning not guilty verdicts on the two counts of sale or delivery of cocaine to a government agent, the jury necessarily accepted his entrapment defense as to all charges. Thus, Morris maintains, the guilty verdicts on the remaining charges of conspiracy, possession and trafficking are legally inconsistent and should not stand. A review of Florida law reveals that "true" legal inconsistency has been found in cases where "the jury's acquittal on one count appeared to negate a specific element necessary for conviction on the other count." Gonzalez v. State, 440 So.2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). See Redondo v. State, 403 So.2d 954 (Fla.1981); Mahaun v. State, 377 So.2d 1158 (Fla.1979); Ayrado v. State, 431 So.2d 320 (Fla.3d DCA 1983). As the supreme court recently noted in Eaton v. State, 438 So.2d 822, 823 (Fla.1983), "[t]he jury is . required to return consistent verdicts as to the guilt of an individual on interlocking charges." See, e.g., Redondo (possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and underlying aggravated battery); Mahaun (felony murder and underlying felony). In the present case the jury did not return verdicts on interlocking charges, but rather acquitted Morris of charges separate and distinct from those upon which he was convicted.
Morris urges error in the trial court's failure to declare a mistrial for an allegedly impermissible golden rule comment made by the prosecutor during final argument. The prosecutor stated:
And Gene Morris gets on the stand and he says, "I'm sorry for the things I have done, I'm sorry for getting involved in drugs, I'm sorry," but he did more than get involved in drugs and be a user. He was predisposed. He's been involved in deals before and sorry just isn't enough.
When your — when your son or your daughter takes some money out of your pocket or purse when you're not looking and you find out they did that—
MR. STRAUSS: Your Honor—
MR. YOSS: Let me rephrase.
MR. STRAUSS: Treading into areas— note my objection.
MR. YOSS: When somebody does something wrong, you say you're sorry, sometimes sorry just isn't enough. Sometimes it must be accountability and punishment. You don't have to worry about punishment, but you sure have to worry about accountability.
We find no reversible error in these comments. Any impropriety in the argument was immediately cured when the prosecutor rephrased his remarks. See James v. State, 429 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Furthermore, this point was not properly preserved for review. Defense counsel obtained no ruling on his objection and failed to request a curative instruction from the court. Ferguson v. State, 417 So.2d 639 (Fla.1982); Smith v. State, 365 So.2d 405 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), review denied, 402 So.2d 613 (Fla.1981). Morris's motion for mistrial, made after the jury had been charged and had retired to deliberate, came too late to preserve Morris's objection for appeal. State v. Cum-bie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla.1980). The comments did not constitute fundamental error, and no basis for reversal has been demonstrated.
Finally, Morris asserts that by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing directed to mitigation of his sentence, the trial court erroneously denied him an opportunity to challenge the minimum mandatory sentence on the ground that it was unconstitutionally applied to him. Morris relies on section 893.135(3), Florida Statutes (1981):
The state attorney may move the sentencing court to reduce or suspend the sentence of any person who is convicted of a violation of this section and who provides substantial assistance in the identification, arrest, or conviction of any of his accomplices, accessories, co-conspirators, or principals. The arresting agency shall be given an opportunity to be heard in aggravation or mitigation in reference to any such motion. Upon good cause shown, the motion may be filed and heard in camera. The judge hearing the motion may reduce or suspend the sentence if he finds that the defendant rendered such substantial assistance.
Morris contends that he was instrumental in achieving the conviction of other principals involved in this case and that his substantial assistance entitled him to a hearing to determine whether the court should consider reducing or suspending his sentence. The trial court may not reduce or suspend the mandatory sentence compelled by section 893.135(3) unless the state attorney first files a motion to mitigate. As the court stated in State v. Taylor, 411 So.2d 993, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982):
[A]s part of the legislative scheme to stem trafficking in drugs the Legislature authorized trial courts to mitigate a mandatory sentence upon motion by the State Attorney if the convicted person provides substantial assistance in the identification, arrest, or conviction of any of his accomplices, accessories, co-conspirators, or principals. § 893.135(3), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1980). No further authority is reposed in the trial court to mitigate a mandatory minimum sentence in trafficking cases.
Because the record reflects that the state attorney did not file a motion to mitigate the mandatory minimum sentence, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Morris's claim.
We are not unsympathetic to the severity of the sentence Morris received; however, this court is without power to contravene legislative enactments and policy decisions within the purview of other branches of government.
Based upon the foregoing reasons and authority, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
Affirmed.
. The recorded telephone conversation disclosed, in pertinent part, the following exchange between Morris and Donaldson:
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Hello."
MR. DONALDSON: "Gene?"
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Yeah."
MR. DONALDSON: "What's up?"
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Nothing. What's the scoop?"
MR. DONALDSON: "All right, he's gonna do it like this here — he said he'll show you the money. He said it's fine."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "All right."
MR. DONALDSON: "He go — you only see half unless you wanna bring the stuff. He said you can see the whole thing and we can do it there, but you can see the money as long as you want to see it in the parking lot where no one can get ripped — he go because — he wanna do it in the parking lot is it's quite normal for people to come out of the parking lot and open and close trunks and he'll have the money in the trunk and what happens, he'll open ' it up. He'll let you see the money. You can either — if you want, bring it. He said you can bring it in your car and park somewhere and meet us in his car or you can come see it, see the money and — "
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Come see me — '
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "All right. Okay, man, you better make sure this ain't no f.. set-up, boy."
MR. DONALDSON: "Okay."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Did you hear me?"
MR. DONALDSON: "Huh?"
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Did you hear what I said?"
MR. DONALDSON: "Yeah."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "All right. Now, you're absolutely positive of these people?" MR. DONALDSON: "Yeah. I'm positive. It's only gonna be and Joe, anyhow, so — "
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "All right. You know the guy?"
MR. DONALDSON: "Yeah. I met him one time but, you know — I meet him — "
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. All right. Fine."
MR. DONALDSON: "Well, look, I'll meet you at 4:00, okay?"
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Four o'clock."
MR. DONALDSON: "I'll call you before I come."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "All right."
MR. DONALDSON: "All right."
. In proffering Gotbaum's testimony, defense counsel stated:
MR. STRAUSS: He's going to testify that Freddie he's known Freddie for years and years, took him in as family. He's also going to testify—
I believe he will also testify that Freddie called him, all right, and told him three months ago that, or four months ago, he was going to be setting up Gene.
The last thing, Your Honor, I am proffering my words, not his, the last thing is that he would testify that Fred Donaldson took Quaa-ludes, LSD in high school. He went to this fellow for help, when, afterwards and his family, his father is a doctor, they tried to help Fred Donaldson. That he hallucinates. He's incompetent.
. Although the dissenting opinion asserts that the trial court precluded the defense from calling Donaldson as an adverse witness, the record reflects that defense counsel had sufficient opportunity to call Donaldson. The trial court stated:
I'm going to deny your motion at this moment. In the event you call Donaldson and Donaldson begins to play games or not answering your questions or if we get into any kind of activity, then I'm certainly going to consider your motion. But, so long as he answers your questions, I'm not going to treat him as a hostile witness until he makes some indication of it.
It is not the responsibility of this court to second guess the strategy of trial counsel; nevertheless, it is clear that defense counsel could have called Donaldson, either as a court witness or as a defense witness, and upon an appropriate showing, he would have been deemed a hostile witness.
. Under the objective or hypothetical person approach to entrapment, the dispositive question is whether a police agent used inducements likely to cause a hypothetically non-disposed person to commit the crime charged. The focus under the objective test is upon the police conduct in using improper inducements, and not upon the predisposition of the defendant. Since Arkansas applies the objective test for entrapment, the dissent's reliance on Spears v. State, 264 Ark. 83, 568 S.W.2d 492 (1978) is misplaced.
. Contrary to the contentions raised by the dissent, the court did not find predisposition as a matter of law, but properly sent the matter to the jury for its consideration as to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence bearing on the entrapment defense. The evidentiary basis for the jury's rejection of the entrapment defense has not been challenged on appeal.
The record indicates that far from being badgered, Morris even invited participation. The record reflects:
AGENT BRINSON: "Is it coming in?"
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "--listen, let me tell you something first. Let me tell you something first. If I wanted to rip you, I could have done that. I got no f. rip — first of all, you know, if you want me to trust you, you got to trust me somewhere along the line. These people are saying the same thing."
AGENT BRINSON: " — if I have a change in plans, you know, it's causing me headaches — "
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "... I assure you, man, there's no pressure, there's no worry. I got as much to lose as you .
AGENT BRINSON: "No. Who I'm dealing with?"
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "You ever heard of a m.-f. who used to play for the Dolphins?" _ "Named Mercury Morris?"_ "You ever heard of that m.-f_? Well, this is me." _ "... I won't f_with nobody who doesn't have as much to lose as me. If the deal can go off, fine, everything is set and the place is on 97th....
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "You look at your product, that's the f..way you're suppose to do it." AGENT BRINSON: "I know how you're supposed to do it, but I thought I was dealing with you."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "You are dealing with me — you are dealing with me — you are dealing With me straight up and you'll see how it goes off, it will be smooth, just like it — hey, man, listen."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "... somewhere along the line somebody's got to trust somebody."
AGENT BRINSON: "That's true."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Now, if I wanted you — I could — hey, that's right there, but I don't want that. I want you to come back again and again and again.
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Exactly — I'm telling you right now, you know, you'll be satisfied with this situation and you'll want to do it this way every †..time."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Street — I'm not looking to rip you and you are not looking to rip me, you don't know that and I don't know — the only way — you can — me prove it to you, you prove it to me, everybody is going like this here, you know — "
AGENT BRINSON: "Okay. Well, you know, if I can't square — I'll try to do, you know, something else tomorrow. If I can't do that, then we'll work it that way for now."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "What's the matter, you scared?"
AGENT BRINSON: "I'm not scared."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Are you leery?"
AGENT BRINSON: I need to make some connections out here."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "You see, man — " AGENT BRINSON: "You know, I don't know where you stand, where I am coming from. See, when you are in my type of business you don't trust too many people — you can't trust your own mother — brother."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "I understand it, man, but, you know, what you do is just like you're saying, you look — the kind of connection you're looking for is the kind of connection you're talking to."
AGENT BRINSON: "Like I said, I must follow my conscience now."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "Let me just tell you this, though, man: Here's the kind of situation where you come down, you got the money and they got the shit. Get the shit, you got the money, pick it up, you look at it, you see if you like it, and you take it. Nobody questions you.... So, you see from a vantage point of somebody who is here — they're established and hey, man, we want to meet you in the parking lot and do it, you know — by the same token to establish the kind of connections that you're looking for, that you want on a regular basis, of a quality material — "
AGENT BRINSON: "Yeah."
DEFENDANT MORRIS: "/ have that connection." (emphasis supplied) (expletives deleted)
. Agent Gilbert's affidavit relates in pertinent part:
6. On or about August 16, 1982, your Affi-ant contacted Special Agent Joseph Brinson, of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and requested that Agent Brinson act in an undercover capacity in order to meet with Eugene Morris, also known as "Gene", to purchase suspected cocaine.
7. On or about August 16, 1982, at approximately 6:00 PM, your Affiant observed Special Agent Brinson meet with a black male who introduced himself as "Gene" at the Dadeland Mall Shopping Center in Miami, Dade County, Florida. During the meeting the black male was observed driving a black/grey 1981 Cadillac Sevelle [sic], bearing Florida tag number XCS-882, accompanied by a white male identified to your Affiant by the confidential informant as "Ed".
9.On August 16, 1982, at approximately 6:15 PM, your Affiant was advised by Special Agent Brinson that "Gene" offered to sell to Agent Brinson two (2) kilograms of cocaine for $58,000.00 per kilogram. Your Affiant was advised by Agent Brinson that "Gene" delivered to him a small tin foil packet of suspected cocaine as a sample. Your Affiant Gilbert was advised by Investigative Supervisor Karen Jacobson, of the State Attorney's Office, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida that a field test of the sample indicated the presence of cocaine.
10. On August 16, 1982, your Affiant Gilbert Was advised by Special Agent Brinson that he, Brinson, was told by Eugene Morris, also known as "Gene", that "Gene" could deliver two (2) kilograms of cocaine, however, that the sale and delivery could not occur at the Dadeland Shopping Center. Your Affiant Gilbert observed Special Agent Brinson meet with Eugene Morris, also known as "Gene", on August 16, 1982, at approximately 9:30 PM. Your Affiant was advised by Brinson that the meetings with Eugene Morris, also known as "Gene", occurred in order to discuss the sale and delivery of two (2) kilograms of cocaine.
11. On August 17, 1982, your Affiant Gilbert was advised by Special Agent Brinson that pursuant to several telephone conversations between Brinson and Eugene Morris, also known as "Gene", at telephone number (305) 666-3971 that Agent Brinson was instructed by Morris to proceed to 6200 S.W. 64th Court and pick up a one (1) ounce sample of cocaine. Your Affiant was advised by the confidential informant that telephone number (305) 666-3971, is located at the resi dence of Eugene Morris, also known as "Gene" at 6200 S.W. 64th Court, South Miami, Dade County, Florida. Your Affiant Gilbert was advised by Investigative Supervisor K. Jacobson that the Southern Bell Telephone Company list (305) 666-3971 to Eugene Morris at 6200 S.W. 64th Court, South Miami, Dade County, Florida.
12.On August 17, 1982, at approximately 7:00 PM, your Affiant Gilbert and other investigators from the State Attorney's Office, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida surveilled Special Agent Brinson to 6200 S.W. 64th Court, South Miami, Dade County, Florida. Your Affiant Gilbert was advised by Special Agent Brinson that he, Brinson, met with Eugene Morris, also known as "Gene", inside the residence and that Brinson was offered one (1) ounce of suspected cocaine as a sample. Your Affiant Gilbert was advised by Special Agent Brinson that he, Brinson, took a small quantity of suspected cocaine from the one (1) ounce package from Eugene Morris, also known as "Gene" at 6200 S.W. 64th Court, South Miami, Dade County, Florida. Your Affiant Gilbert was present when a field test on the sample indicated the presence of cocaine.
13. On August 17, 1982, at approximately 9:45 PM, Your Affiant Gilbert and other investigators from the State Attorney's Office, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, observed Eugene Morris, also known as "Gene", meet with Special Agent Brinson on S.W. 67th Avenue and approximately S.W. 59th Street, South Miami, Dade County, Florida. Your Affiant Gilbert was advised by Special Agent Brinson that the purpose of the meeting was to deliver one (1) kilogram of suspected cocaine for $58,000.00[.]
14. At approximately 10:00 PM.'on August 17, 1982, your Affiant Gilbert was advised by Agent Brinson that Eugene Morris, also known as "Gene", would not deliver the one (1) kilogram of cocaine in the parking lot and that Agent Brinson was instructed by Morris to go to 6200 S.W. 64th Court, South Miami, Dade County, Florida and pick up the cocaine.