ERNEST CORDTS, 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.
Affirmed conviction for sexual battery of a child under 12; sexual battery under Fla. Stat. § 794.011 does not require intent to obtain sexual gratification when a foreign object is used for penetration.
Sexual battery under Florida Statutes § 794.011 does not require the actor to intend sexual gratification when penetration is accomplished with a foreign object rather than a sexual organ.
[1] Sexual battery under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of sexual battery of a child under 12 years of age. The defendant used his finger, a foreign object, to penetrate the child.…
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 Criminal Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
We affirm defendant’s conviction for sexual battery of a child under 12 years of age. We do not agree with defendant’s contention that the crime of sexual battery under section 794.011, Florida Statutes (1985), is not committed when a so-called foreign object (here, defendant’s finger), and not a sexual organ, is used in the act of penetration unless there is an intent by the actor to obtain sexual gratification. State v. Alonso, 345 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), is authority for that contention. As Judge Hubbart’s concurring opinion in Al-onso points out, the Third District Court of Appeal in that case “[b]y its decision ... has held that an essential element of the crime of sexual battery under Section 794.-011, Florida Statutes (1975), is a criminal intent to obtain sexual gratification, which element the state must allege and prove.” Id. at 743. However, in Aiken v. State, 390 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla.1980), the Florida Supreme Court specifically said, “The decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Alonso is overruled.” See also Judge Dauksch’s concurring opinion in State v. Aiken, 370 So. 2d 1184, 1186-87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
We conclude that defendant’s other contention on appeal is without merit.
AFFIRMED.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Aiken v. State, 390 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Aiken, 370 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- State v. Alonso, 345 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)