JEFFREY ALEXANDER GRUNZEL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Jeffrey Grunzel appeals his conviction for burglary with assault and two counts of sexual battery, arguing the incident constituted only one continuous episode of sexual battery. The court affirms, holding that cunnilingus and intercourse constitute two separate sexual battery violations under Florida law because they are acts of different character and type requiring different elements of proof.
The court holds that two separate violations of the sexual battery statute occurred. Each act was a sexual battery of separate character and type requiring different elements of proof, and despite the short interval between them, each act constitutes a separate criminal offense.
[1] Two distinct acts of sexual battery occur when an offender commits oral penetration followed by vaginal penetration, even if the acts are part of a continuous episode.
[2] The statutory definition of sexual battery includes oral union with the sexual organ of another.
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“It is our opinion that in this case two violations of the statute occurred. Adopting the reasoning of the Second DCA in Duke v. State, 444 So.2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), we find each act was a sexual battery of a separate character and type which logically requires different elements of proof.”
Establishes the court's core holding that cunnilingus and intercourse constitute two separate sexual battery offenses despite occurring in quick succession.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 16, 1984, Grunzel entered the victim's apartment without consent and performed cunnilingus for a few seconds immediately before having in…
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 Sexual Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
JÜANOS, Judge.
Grunzel appeals from a conviction for one count of burglary with an assault and two counts of sexual battery. He contends that the incident leading to his conviction should have resulted in only one count of sexual battery. We disagree with Grunzel and affirm the conviction.
On September 16, 1984 Grunzel entered the victim’s apartment where against her will he performed cunnilingus for a few seconds immediately before having intercourse with her. In the information Grun-zel was charged with one count of burglary and two counts of sexual battery. He pled nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the determination on the number of counts of sexual battery. The trial court sentenced Grunzel to seven years on each count, to run concurrently.
Grunzel argues that the incident constituted only one continuous episode of sexual battery and that he was therefore wrongly convicted of two offenses. We disagree. The Florida Statutes defines sexual battery as:
oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal, or vaginal penetration of another by any other object ...
s. 794.01 1(1)(f), F.S. (1983).
It is our opinion that in this case two violations of the statute occurred. Adopting the reasoning of the Second DCA in Duke v. State, 444 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), we find each act was a sexual battery of a separate character and type which logically requires different elements of proof. Notwithstanding the short interval of time that evolved between the acts involved here, we believe each act is a separate criminal offense. Duke, at 494.
The argument that cunnilingus does not meet the statutory definition of “penetration by any other object” does not advance Grunzel’s appeal. The act of cunnilingus might or might not involve a penetration, depending on the facts of each case. It is, in all cases, the “oral union with the sexual organ of another.” An oral union followed by any other act that fits the statutory language constitutes two separate violations of the sexual battery statute.
We agree with Grunzel that if the statute were ambiguous the rules of statutory construction would require the statute be construed against the state and for the accused. However, it is clear that application of the statute to these facts was well within the intent of the legislature. Chapter 794 of Florida Statutes shows a clear intent to protect an individual’s sexual privacy from violence. Aiken v. State, 390 So. 2d 1186 (Fla.1980) “[A] violation of the sexual battery statute occurs whenever ... there is intentional, non-consensual intrusion into the sexual privacy of another.” Surace v. State, 378 So. 2d 895, 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (Schwartz, J., specially concurring), cert. denied 389 So. 2d 1115 (Fla.1980). See also Dorch v. State, 458 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Accordingly, we affirm.
SHIVERS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State v. Meshell, 2 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2009)…cter and type requiring different elements of proof warrant multiple punishments. See Duke v. State, 444 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2nd DCA) (vaginal penetration followed a moment later by anal penetration), aff'd, 456 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1984); Grunzel v. State, 484 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (cunnilingus followed a few seconds later by vaginal intercourse); Begley v. State, 483 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (attempted vaginal intercourse, attempted cunnilingus, fellatio, committed over two week period); Bass v. State…
-
Saavedra v. State, 576 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ter and type requiring different elements of proof warrant multiple punishments. See Duke v. State, 444 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2nd DCA ) (vaginal penetration followed a moment later by anal penetration), aff'd, 456 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1984); Grunzel v. State, 484 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), (cunnilingus followed a few seconds later by vaginal intercourse); Begley v. State, 483 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (attempted vaginal intercourse, attempted cunnilingus, fellatio, committed over two week period); Bass v. Stat…
-
Stone v. State, 547 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…(1985), to protect persons from “intentional, non-consensual intrusion into [their] sexual privacy.” Surace v. State, 378 So. 2d 895, 899 (Fla. 3d DCA) (Schwartz, J., specially concurring), cert. denied, 389 So. 2d 1115 (Fla.1980); Grunzel v. State, 484 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We are concerned by the fact that the victim could not precisely define the area of her body which she understood to be her private. Her shyness and embarrassment on the witness stand were completely natural, but they are not a…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Duke v. State, 444 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Norvel Lee Dorch v. State, 458 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Rocco James Surace v. State, 378 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Aiken v. State, 390 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1980)