JON STUMPF, 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.
Stumpf's conviction for solicitation to commit a lewd act on a child was reversed because threatening a victim does not constitute solicitation under Florida law, which requires commanding, encouraging, hiring, or requesting another person to commit an offense.
A person who threatens to commit a sexual act against a child does not solicit that child to commit an offense under Fla. Stat. § 777.04(2).
[1] Threatening to make another person the victim of a crime does not constitute criminal solicitation 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 intelligence“A person who solicits another to commit an offense prohibited by law and in the course of such solicitation commands, encourages, hires, or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such offense or an attempt to commit such offense commits the offense of criminal solicitation.”
Fla. Stat. § 777.04(2) definition of criminal solicitation
Stumpf followed a twelve-year-old boy on a bicycle, forced him off the road, and told him he desired to perform a sexual act on him. The boy was frigh…
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 Solicitation cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellant, Stumpf, was convicted below of one count of solicitation to commit a lewd act on a child and one count of lewd assault on a child. The state’s evidence at trial indicated that Stumpf, riding a bicycle, followed a twelve-year old boy riding his own bicycle, then forced him off the road causing him to fall and scrape his elbow. Stumpf told the minor that he desired (or intended) to perform a sexual act on the minor, who was frightened by the words and actions directed at him.
We must agree with the appellant that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal in respect to Count I, the solicitation charge. Threatening to make another person the victim of a crime obviously does not constitute the conduct proscribed by section 777.04(2), Florida Statutes, which provides: A person who solicits another to commit an offense prohibited by law and in the course of such solicitation commands, encourages, hires, or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such offense or an attempt to commit such offense commits the offense of criminal solicitation.
Stumpf did not solicit the minor to commit any offense, hence his conviction under Count I is reversed.
We find no merit in the appellant’s remaining arguments on this appeal.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Murphy, 124 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…concerns and requirements for a “patient experienced guy” — demonstrating himself to be the right man for the job — in order to obtain the father’s consent. Murphy relies on Randall v. State, 919 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), and Stumpf v. State, 677 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), to argue that merely describing what he intended to do to the girl did not constitute solicitation. Those cases involved defendants charged with soliciting a minor to commit a lewd or lascivious act. See § 800.04(6), Fla. Stat.…
-
Randall v. State, 919 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…support a conviction that he encouraged or requested A.J. to engage in conduct which amounted to a lewd or lascivious act. In support of his argument, Randall cites two cases, Patel v. State, 679 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and Stumpf v. State, 677 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In both Patel and Stumpf, the district courts found that the defendants’ conduct was not proscribed by the statutory language cited above. In Patel, the first district held that evidence that Patel tried to persuade a child und…
-
Privett v. State, 110 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…four and the sentences he received on those counts. But we reverse his conviction on count two for soliciting unlawful sexual activity with minors, in violation of sections 794.05 and 777.04(2), Florida Stat [*544] utes (2008). See Stumpf v. State, 677 So. 2d 1298, 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“Threatening to make another person the victim of a crime obviously does not constitute the conduct proscribed by section 777.04(2), Florida Statutes[J”). See also Randall v. State, 919 So. 2d 695, 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006);…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence