JOAQUIN CASADO, 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.
Joaquin Casado appeals his convictions for sexual offenses against children, challenging the constitutionality of Florida statutes that prohibit a consent defense for sexual activity with minors under 16. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirms his convictions and sentences, upholding the statutes' constitutionality while certifying a constitutional privacy question to the Florida Supreme Court.
The court affirms Casado's convictions and sentences. The court upholds the constitutionality of sections 800.04 and 794.041(2)(b), relying on its prior decision in Jones v. State. However, the court certifies to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether the constitutional right to privacy renders unconstitutional those portions of these statutes that provide consent is not a defense to prosecution for sexual activity with a minor under 16.
[1] Statutes prohibiting sexual activity with a minor under the age of 16 are constitutional, even if they do not allow a defense of consent.
[2] The constitutionality of statutes prohibiting sexual activity with a minor under the age of 16 has been previously upheld.
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“Casado appeals the constitutionality of sections 800.04 and 794.041(2)(b). He argues that they are unconstitutional because they prohibit a defendant who engages in sexual activity with a consenting citizen under the age of 16 years from presenting a defense of consent; a defense which would be available had the defendant been charged with the same offense upon a child 16 years of age or older.”
States the core constitutional argument presented by the appellant regarding unequal treatment of consent defenses based on victim age.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCasado was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of sexual activities with a child, two counts of sexual battery on a child under 16, three counts…
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 Constitutionality Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Joaquin Casado was tried by a jury and found guilty of two counts of sexual activities with a child,1 two counts of sexual battery on a child under the age of 16 years,2 three counts of lewd act upon a child3 and one count of use of a child in a sexual performance.4 Casado was sentenced to concurrent terms totalling 22 years in the Florida Department of Corrections followed by five years supervised probation. Casado appeals the constitutionality of sections 800.04 and 794.041(2)(b).5 He argues that they are unconstitutional because they prohibit a defendant who engages in sexual activity with a consenting citizen under the age of 16 years from presenting a defense of consent; a defense which would be available had the defendant been charged with the same offense upon a child 16 years of age or older. We affirm his convictions and sentences. This court has previously upheld the constitutionality of section 800.04. Jones v. State, 619 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 629 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1993). We specifically uphold the constitutionality of section 794.-041(2)(b) based upon the reasoning in Jones. Id. We again certify to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether the constitutional right to privacy renders unconstitutional those portions of section 800.04 and 794.041 providing that consent is not a defense to a prosecution for sexual activity with a minor under the age of 16.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . § 794.041(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1991).
. § 800.04(3), Fla.Stat. (1991).
. § 800.04(1), Fla.Stat. (1991).
. § 827.071(2), Fla.Stat. (1991).
.Section 794.041, Florida Statutes (1991) provides:
(2) Any person who stands in a position of familial or custodial authority to a child 12 years of age or older but less than 18 years or age and who:
(b) Engages in sexual activity with that child is guilty of a felony of the first degree.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jory v. State, 647 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. . See Jones v. State and State v. Rodriquez and Williams v. State, 619 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), approved, Jones v. State, and Rodriguez v. State, 640 So. 2d 1084 (Fla.1994). See also Casado v. State, 634 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). . § 921.001(5), Fla.Stat. (1987); State v. Nathan, 632 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Finkelstein v. State, 582 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Williams v. State, 531 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). . Whitehead v. State, 498…
-
Crum v. State, 640 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Jones v. State, 640 So. 2d 1084 (Fla.1994); Casado v. State, 634 So. 2d 830 (Fia. 5th DCA 1994). THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.…
-
Casado v. State, 648 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1995)…nce: WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY RENDERS UNCONSTITUTIONAL THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 800.04 AND 794.041 PROVIDING THAT CONSENT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A PROSECUTION FOR SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR UNDER THE AGE OF 16. Casado v. State, 634 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In accordance with our decision in Jones v. State, 640 So. 2d 1084 (Fla.1994), we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the district court’s decision upho…
Authorities Cited
- Quarry Jones v. State, 619 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)