STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH VICTORIA LICK ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida's Supreme Court reversed a trial court ruling that struck down Florida's prostitution statute as unconstitutional for applying only to women. The court held that the statute's text uses gender-neutral language and thus must be interpreted as applying to both men and women, making it constitutional.
The statute is not unconstitutional because it must be interpreted according to its text, which uses gender-neutral language ('any person' and 'giving or receiving of the body for sexual intercourse for hire'). Therefore, the statute applies to both men and women, and the trial court's order striking it down was reversed.
[1] Statutes are presumed constitutional, and courts must resolve doubts in favor of constitutionality.
[2] When a statute is susceptible to two interpretations, one rendering it invalid and the other valid, courts must adopt the valid construction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Legislative enactments are presumed to be constitutional, Cilento v. State, 377 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1979). This Court's obligation is to resolve all doubts as to the validity of a statute in favor of its constitutionality.”
Establishes the fundamental presumption the court applies when reviewing the statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabeth Victoria Lick and another woman were charged with offering to commit prostitution in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07(3)(a). The trial …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gender-Based Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Justice.
This is an appeal from an order of the Leon County Court which held the statutory prohibition against prostitution unconstitutional insofar as it applied only to women. See § 796.07(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1977). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. (1972). We refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court; appellant as state and appellees as defendants.
The defendants, both of whom are women, were charged with unlawfully offering to commit or to engage in prostitution, lewdness or assignation in violation of section 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1977). In an order quashing certain subpoenas duc-es tecum, the trial court interpreted the term prostitution as applying only to women. The defendants filed a memorandum in support of their previous motion to dismiss claiming the statute as interpreted was facially unconstitutional because there was no rational basis for distinguishing between males and females. The trial court agreed and held the statute unconstitutional for that reason. This finding was reiterated in the order denying rehearing:
The Court simply finds that the Statute ... [in question] insofar as it relates only to prostitution, relates only to females and as such cannot be enforced against women only without some compelling State interest or rational basis for such classification.
The trial court and defendants recite several definitions of prostitution which limit the crime to acts by females. E. g., Black’s Law Dictionary 1386 (rev. 4th Ed. 1968); 25 Fla.Jur. Prostitution § 2 (1979 Supp.); 63 Am.Jur.2d Prostitution § 1 (1978 Supp.); 73 C.J.S. Prostitution § 1 at n. 15.5 (1978 Supp.). The state argues these definitions are irrelevant in light of the non-gender based statutory definition which refers to “the giving or receiving of the body for sexual intercourse for hire, ...” § 796.07(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1977) (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, the section making prostitution a crime says “any person ” who violates the statute is guilty of a misdemeanor. § 796.-07(5), Fla.Stat. (1977) (emphasis supplied).
Legislative enactments are presumed to be constitutional, Cilento v. State, 377 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1979). This Court’s obligation is to resolve all doubts as to the validity of a statute in favor of its constitutionality. State v. Cormier, 375 So. 2d 852 (Fla.1979). Thus, even where the statute is reasonably susceptible of two in-térpretations, one of which would render it invalid and the other valid, we must adopt the constitutional construction. See Florida State Board of Architecture v. Wasserman, 377 So. 2d 653 (Fla.1979). These maxims make it clear that even if there exists an interpretation limiting the crime of prostitution to women, we should abide by the alternative construction which makes no sex-based distinction. Our decision comports with others which have upheld convictions of men under this statute. See, e. g., Whitted v. State, 362 So. 2d 668 (Fla.1978); Gort v. State, 345 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1977); State v. Bales, 343 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1977), and Bell v. State, 289 So. 2d 388 (Fla.1973).
The order of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
License Acquisitions, LLC v. Debary Real Est. Holdings, LLC, 155 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 2014)…f Revenue v. Howard, 916 So. 2d 640, 642 (Fla.2005). “[E]ven where the statute is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, one of which would render it invalid and the other valid, we must adopt the constitutional construction.” State v. Lick, 390 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla.1980); see also Dep’t of Ins. v. Se. Volusia Hosp. Dist., 438 So. 2d 815, 820 (Fla.1983); Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 394 So. 2d 981, 988 (Fla.1981) (“Given that an interpretation upholding the constitutionality of the act is…
-
Jackson v. State, 191 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 2016)…subject to de novo review. Crist v. Ervin, 56 So. 3d 745, 747 (Fla.2010). Generally, statutes are presumed constitutional,, and the challenging party has the burden to establish the statute’s invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Lick, 390 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla.1980). It is the Court’s duty to “construe challenged legislation to effect a constitutional outcome whenever possible.” Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Howard, 916 So. 2d 640, 642 (Fla.2005). A statutory classification will be deemed to-violate…
-
Green v. State, 765 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ly susceptible of Green’s interpretation. However, where a statute is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, one of which would render it invalid and the other valid, we must adopt the consti [*914] tutional construction.. See State v. Lick, 390 So. 2d 52 (Fla.1980). Section 921.0011(7)(b)l provides that “[i]f the conviction is for an offense involving sexual contact that includes sexual penetration, the sexual penetration must be scored in accordance with the sentence points provided under s. 921.0…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Bales, 343 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1977)
- Bell v. State, 289 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1973)
- Whitted v. State, 362 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1978)
- The Fla. State Bd. OF Architecture & the Dep't of Prof'l & Occupational Reg. v. Wasserman, 377 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1979)
- Cilento v. State, 377 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1979)
- State v. Cormier, 375 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1979)
- Gort v. State, 345 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1977)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & Penny Lynn Maddox v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 345 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1977)