STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JEROME LANIER, RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal's decision that a defendant could not be convicted under Section 800.04 for sexual intercourse with a twelve-year-old girl merely because the victim was previously unchaste and the intercourse was consensual. The Court held that neither the victim's lack of chastity nor consent is a defense to the crime of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child.
Yes. Section 800.04 is violated when a male engages in sexual intercourse with a twelve-year-old girl regardless of whether the victim was previously unchaste or whether the sexual intercourse was consensual. Neither the victim's lack of chastity nor the victim's consent is a defense to the crime.
[1] A defendant charged with lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault or act upon a child may be convicted under section 800.04, Florida Statutes, even if the victim was previou…
[2] Subsequent legislative amendments clarifying the intent of a statute are given great deference, especially when the amendment serves to clarify existing law.
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“Neither the victim's lack of chastity nor the victim's consent is a defense to the crime proscribed by this section.”
The statutory language establishing that traditional common law defenses based on victim chastity and consent do not apply to sexual crimes against children.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJerome Lanier was charged by information with unlawfully handling, fondling, or assaulting a twelve-year-old girl by engaging in sexual intercourse, a…
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 Legislative Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1193] ADKINS, Justice.
The following question has been certified as being of great public importance:
MAY A DEFENDANT WHO IS CHARGED BY INFORMATION ALLEGING THAT HE DID UNLAWFULLY HANDLE, FONDLE OR MAKE AN ASSAULT UPON A TWELVE-YEAR-OLD GIRL ‘BY ENGAGING IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE’ BE CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF SECTION 800.04, FLORIDA STATUTES (1981), WHERE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS REVEAL THAT THE TWELVE-YEAR-OLD WAS PREVIOUSLY UNCHASTE AND THE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WAS CONSENSUAL?
The Third District Court of Appeal answered the question in the negative. Lanier v. State, 443 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and we answer the question in the affirmative.
Section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1983), punishes lewd, lascivious or indecent assaults or acts upon or in the presence of a child. Shortly after the certification of this question, the Florida legislature convened and passed an amendment to section 800.-04, which was designed to specifically cover the acts committed in the instant case.
Section 800.04 was amended, in part, to read:
(3) Neither the victim’s lack of chastity nor the victim’s consent is a defense to the crime proscribed by this section.
The legislature indicated its desire to correct the Third District Court of Appeal’s misguided interpretation of the legislative intent behind section 800.04 by amending this section shortly after the question was certified. The preamble to chapter 84-86, Laws of Florida, amending section 800.04 notes:
WHEREAS, the intent of the Legislature was and remains to prohibit lewd and lascivious acts upon children, including sexual intercourse and other acts defined as sexual battery, without regard either to the victim’s consent or of the victim’s prior chastity.
(Emphasis added.)
We must apply section 800.04 as it existed at the time the allegedly lewd and lascivious acts occurred, prior to the enactment of the amendment. Further, we are not bound by statements of legislative intent uttered subsequent to either the enactment of a statute or the actions which allegedly violate the statute. However, we will show great deference to such statements, especially in a case such as this, when the enactment of an amendment to a statute is passed merely to clarify existing law. Cf. Williams v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 382 So. 2d 1216, 1220 (Fla.1980). (An amendment to a statute clarifying the scope of underinsured motorist insurance coverage did not alter the scope of such coverage as it existed prior to the enactment of the amendment because the amendment merely served to clarify the extent of coverage as it previously existed.)
Therefore, we hold that section 800.-04 both prior to and subsequent to the 1984 amendment is violated when a male engages in sexual intercourse with a twelve-year-old girl despite the fact that the victim was previously unchaste and the sexual intercourse was consensual.
For the reasons stated, the decision of the district court is quashed and the cause is remanded with instructions to affirm the order of the trial court.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, ALDERMAN, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Seagrave v. State, 802 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2001)…ourt's rules. See ch. 84-328, Laws of Fla. . The legislative history to this amendment indicates that the amendment was enacted in response to the Third District's decision in [*289] Lanier v. State, 443 So. 2d 178, 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), quashed, 464 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.1985), in which the court held that having consensual sexual intercourse with an unchaste twelve-year-old girl did not constitute an offense of handling or fondling in a lewd, lascivious or indecent manner or the offense of making an assault in…
-
State v. Hightower, 509 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1987)…GRIMES, Justice. We accepted jurisdiction of this case because of apparent conflict with State v. Lanier, 464 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.1985). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The defendant was charged with sexual battery of a six-year-old child, pursuant to section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes (1983). Over the defendant’s objection the court instructed the jury that lewd and la…
-
State v. Surapo S. Sorakrai, 543 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…apparent dependence of section 800.04(2) upon section 794.011(1)(h), it is our view that the legislature intended section 794.021 to be operative in the implementation of section 800.04(2). It is manifest from the result reached in State v. Lanier, 464 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.1985), that the supreme court perceived sexual intercourse with an underage female, condemned in section 800.04, to be criminal behavior notwithstanding the absence of chastity and the presence of consent. It is our judgment that conduct violat…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 382 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1980)
- Lanier v. State, 443 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)