LOUIS J. TICKNOR, 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.
Ticknor appeals his convictions for sexual battery on a child under twelve and attempted sexual battery. The court affirmed the sexual battery conviction but reversed the attempted sexual battery conviction for insufficient evidence.
The court affirmed the sexual battery conviction but reversed the attempted sexual battery conviction, concluding the victim's testimony was insufficient as a matter of law to establish the elements of attempted sexual battery.
[1] A conviction for attempted sexual battery requires proof of the specific intent to commit sexual battery and an overt act toward its commission, which is interrupted by c…
[2] Unsworn, uncorroborated statements inconsistent with a victim's trial testimony are insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction.
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“Two elements are required to convict a defendant of an attempt to commit an offense. These elements are (1) the specific intent to commit the offense and (2) a separate overt act done toward the commission of the offense, which is interrupted by some circumstance not caused by the perpetrator.”
Establishes the legal standard for attempted sexual battery required by Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTicknor was charged with two counts: (1) sexual battery on a child under twelve, involving placement of his finger in the victim's vagina and anus, fo…
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 On A Child cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Louis Ticknor appeals his judgments and sentences for sexual battery on a child of less than twelve years of age and attempted sexual battery. We affirm the judgment and sentence for sexual battery. We, however, reverse the attempted sexual battery conviction, concluding that the state failed to present competent evidence to support this conviction.
The state, in count one of the amended information, charged Ticknor with sexual battery on a child less than twelve years of age, alleging that he placed his finger in the vagina and anus of the victim. The jury found him guilty as charged, and the trial court entered a judgment and sentence. We affirm this conviction.
In count two of the amended information, the state charged that Ticknor “attempt[ed] to commit a sexual battery upon [the victim], a child less than 12 years of age by attempting to place his penis into or in union with the vagina of [the victim].” Two elements are required to convict a defendant of an attempt to commit an offense. These elements are (1) the specific intent to commit the offense and (2) a separate overt act done toward the commission of the offense, which is interrupted by some circumstance not caused by the perpetrator. State v. Coker, 452 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The victim testified that she closed her knees when Tick-nor, standing over her in his underwear, moved toward her and stated, “Isn’t this what you want....” The victim further testified that she did not see Ticknor put any clothes on or take any off during this period of time. We conclude that the victim’s testimony was insufficient to establish the elements of attempted sexual battery.
The state also presented the testimony of the detective who interviewed the victim after she made the aforementioned allegations. The detective testified that the victim had told her that Ticknor rubbed his penis against her vaginal area and that she closed her knees in an attempt to stop Ticknor. Unsworn, uncorroborated statements that are inconsistent with the victim’s trial testimony, however, are insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction. See Williams v. State, 560 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Based on the above, we reverse the attempted sexual battery conviction for insufficient evidence and remand this case to the trial court to dismiss the attempted sexual battery charge. Mr. Ticknor need not be present because his conviction and sentence under count one of the amended information remains undisturbed in this opinion.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with directions to the trial court.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant Williams v. State, 714 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…5-86 (1992); State v. Martinez, 150 Wis.2d 62, 440 N.W. 2d 783, 789 (1989). .In addition to Green, the defendant relies on Brantley v. State, 692 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); L.E.W. v. State, 616 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Ticknor v. State, 595 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bell v. State, 569 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Williams v. State, 560 So. 2d [*466] 1304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); and Jaggers v. State, 536 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). All of these cases involve the child victim hearsay excep…
-
Baugh v. State, 862 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…(quoting Green, 667 So. 2d at 760, for the proposition that the “law in this state is that prior unsworn, inconsistent, and [*766] uncorroborated statements cannot constitute the only substantive evidence to sustain a conviction”); Ticknor v. State, 595 So. 2d 109, 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (“Unsworn, uncorroborated statements that are inconsistent with the victim’s trial testimony ... are insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction.”); Bell v. State, 569 So. 2d 1322, 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (“Becau…
-
State v. Duke, 709 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…he charges in this case, we think was sufficient to merit a new trial. We could simply affirm on that basis. However, we find the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to warrant Duke’s conviction of attempted sexual battery. Ticknor v. State, 595 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). See also Rogers v. State, 660 So. 2d 237, 241 (Fla.1995); Thomas v. State, 531 So. 2d 708, [*582] 709 (Fla.1988); Smith v. State, 632 So. 2d 644, 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We think this issue is sufficiently raised in this case, a…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Coker, 452 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Williams v. State, 560 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)