DANIEL P. READY, 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.
Daniel Ready was convicted of sexual battery on a child under twelve based on digital penetration. The appellate court reversed the conviction because the state relied solely on uncorroborated hearsay to prove penetration, which violated Florida law requiring corroborating evidence of this essential element.
The conviction for sexual battery by digital penetration must be reversed because although touching was established, the state failed to present corroborating evidence of penetration beyond uncorroborated hearsay statements. However, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser included offense of handling and fondling a child under sixteen.
[1] Proof of penetration in a sexual battery case requires more than uncorroborated hearsay statements.
[2] A conviction for sexual battery by digital penetration cannot stand if the sole evidence of penetration is hearsay without corroboration.
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“In order to prove the crime of sexual battery by digital penetration, the prosecution is required to show penetration, although even the slightest evidence of penetration is sufficient.”
Establishes the legal standard for what must be proven in a digital penetration case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReady was charged with sexual battery by placing his finger in the vagina of a child under twelve years old. A jury found him guilty and the trial cou…
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
PER CURIAM.
The appellant,'Daniel P. Ready, challenges the judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty of sexual battery upon a child less than twelve years of age. We reverse.
The state charged appellant with sexual battery by placing his finger in the vagina of a child less than twelve years of age contrary to section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes (1987). The jury found appellant guilty as charged and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison with a minimum mandatory term of twenty-five years. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
In order to prove the crime of sexual battery by digital penetration, the prosecution is required to show penetration, although even the slightest evidence of penetration is sufficient. J.W.C. v. State, 573 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). However, uncorroborated hearsay statements cannot be used as the sole evidence to prove penetration. Jaggers v. State, 536 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Bell v. State, 569 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
In the instant case, there was sufficient evidence to establish that appellant touched the victim’s vagina including the child victim’s testimony that appellant touched her vagina. However, the only evidence put forward by the prosecution to prove that appellant penetrated the victim’s vagina was the hearsay statement made by the victim to one of the investigating detectives. There was no medical evidence of penetration, nor any other competent corroborative evidence of penetration. We must therefore reverse the conviction of sexual battery by digital penetration. Jaggers; Bell.
We find no merit in any of the other issues raised by appellant. Therefore, since the record indicates that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for the lesser included offense of handling and fondling a child under sixteen years of age contrary to section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1987), the trial court upon remand should enter a judgment against the appellant for that lesser included offense and sentence him accordingly-
We, accordingly, reverse the conviction of sexual battery by digital penetration, vacate the life sentence, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richards v. State, 738 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ation requires some entry into the relevant part, however slight. For cases concerning union, see Stone v. State, 547 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), and Dorch v. State, 458 So. 2d 357 (Fla.1984). For cases concerning penetration, see Ready v. State, 636 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and Davis v. State, 569 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Third, it is clear that a defendant’s finger is an “other object,” which must penetrate and not merely have union with the relevant part. See Stone, 547 So. 2d 657; Dorch,…
-
Bauta v. State, 698 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ttery in the Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases. There was no error in the court’s refusal of the requested jury instruction. On this issue we certify direct conflict with Ready v. State, 636 So. 2d 67, 68 (Fla.2d DCA 1994). Fifth, defendant argues that the trial court erred by sustaining the state’s objections to certain cross-examination questions defendant put to the lead detective who conducted the investigation in this case. Defendant attemp…
-
Ready v. State, 657 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…on of handling and fondling a child under sixteen years of age. We reverse. Appellant was convicted of sexual battery of a child under twelve years of age. He appealed and this court reversed the judgment and vacated the sentence in Ready v. State, 636 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). This court directed the trial court to enter a judgment against appellant for the lesser included offense of handling and fondling a child. On remand, the trial court entered a judgment for that offense and imposed an upward depa…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jaggers v. State, 536 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Bell v. State, 569 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- J.W.C. v. State, 573 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)