MICHAEL P. GRADY, 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.
Grady was charged with procuring a person under 18 for prostitution under Florida Statute § 796.03. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that the statute does not require proof that the defendant knew the victim was underage, as crimes protecting children from sexual exploitation fall within a public policy exception to the mens rea requirement.
The court held that knowledge of the victim's age is not required, as crimes against children protecting them from sexual abuse or exploitation fall within a public policy exception to the requirement of specific intent or mens rea. Accordingly, ignorance of the age of the victim is not a defense.
[1] Crimes against children, where the state has a compelling interest in protecting underage persons from sexual abuse or exploitation, are an exception to the general rule…
[2] In crimes against children, proof of the defendant's intent is not indispensable to 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“crimes against children fall "within the category of crimes in which, on grounds of public policy, certain acts are made punishable without proof that the defendant understands the facts that give character to his act ... and proof of an intent is not indispensable to conviction."”
Establishes the exception to the mens rea requirement for crimes involving protection of minors
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrady was charged with procuring a person under the age of 18 years for prostitution in violation of § 796.03, Florida Statutes (1995), a second degre…
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 Compelling State Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Section 796.03, Florida Statutes (1995) classifies the procurement for prostitution of a person under the age of 18 years as a second degree felony. . Appellant asserts that an essential element of the crime is that a defendant must know that the person he or she procures for prostitution is under 18, but the statute is silent as to this requirement. We affirm.
While the general rule is that every crime must include a specific intent, or a mens rea, our legislature and courts recognize an exception to the specific intent requirement where the state has a compelling interest in protecting underage persons from being sexually abused or exploited. Stated differently, crimes against children fall “within the category of crimes in which, on grounds of public policy, certain acts are made punishable without proof that the defendant understands the facts that give character to his act ... and proof of an intent is not indispensable to conviction.” See State v. Sorakrai 543 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (quoting Simmons v. State, 151 Fla. 778, 10 So. 2d 436, 438 (1942)).
Thus, ignorance of the age of the victim is not a defense nor either is misrepresentation of age, or a defendant’s bona fide belief that such victim is over the specified age. Sorakrai (neither ignorance, misrepresentation, nor belief that victim was 16 years.or older is available as a defense to defendant charged with committing a lewd and lascivious act upon child under age of 16 years in violation of § 800.04, Fla. Stat.); Green v. State, 580 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (same); Hicks v. State, 561 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (defendant’s ignorance of the victim’s age was not a viable defense to defendant charged with use of a child in a sexual performance in violation of § 827.071(2), Fla. Stat.), rev. denied, 574 So. 2d 141 (Fla.1990); State v. Robinette, 652 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (violation of § 827.071(2) falls within the category of crimes which furthers the state’s compelling interest to protect persons under the age of 18 from being sexually exploited, and on grounds of public policy, certain acts are made punishable without proof that the de fendant understands the facts that give character to his act).
See also, Hendricks v. State, 360 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (where the act involves the sexual organ of the actor there can be no question that the act itself infers a criminal intent requiring no specific intent, of sexual gratification or otherwise, than that evidenced by the doing of the acts constituting the offense), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 964, 99 S.Ct. 2411, 60 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1979).
We find the chárged offense in the instant case, procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution in violation of section 796.03, Florida Statutes (1995), falls within this category of crimes where the state has a compelling interest in protecting underage persons from being sexually abused or exploited. Accordingly, appellant’s ignorance of the age of the victim is not a defense.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Register v. State, 715 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…e defense cited Barber v. State, 397 So. 2d 741, 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), for the proposition that “the underlying purpose of section 796.03 ... appears to be to protect children from sexual exploitation for commercial purposes.” See Grady v. State, 701 So. 2d 1181, 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (affirming conviction of procurement for prostitution, despite defense of lack of knowledge that victim was under age 18, because the state’s “compelling interest in protecting underage persons from being sexually abused or…
-
McCANN v. State, 711 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…initions as being criminal conduct. This is especially true in light of the fact that the intent behind the statue is the state’s compelling interest in protecting underage people from being sexu [*1293] ally abused or exploited. See Grady v. State, 701 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). A person reading the statue from the perspective of a person of reasonable intelligence would be put on notice that asking a person under the age of 18 years to use his or her body as a “sex toy” in exchange for money would be…
-
Hodge v. State, 866 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…v. State, 151 Fla. 778, 10 So. 2d 486, 438 (1942), and stating that ignorance or mistake as to age is no defense to a defendant charged with committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of sixteen years); see also Grady v. State, 701 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(defendant’s knowledge that the person he procured for prostitution was under eighteen is irrelevant); Hicks v. State, 561 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)(defendant’s ignorance of victim’s age not a defense for defendant charged wi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simmons v. State, 151 Fla. 778 (Fla. 1942)
- State v. Surapo S. Sorakrai, 543 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Hendricks v. State, 360 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Hicks v. State, 561 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- McMAHON v. State, 561 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Green v. State, 580 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Hendricks v. Florida, 441 U.S. 964 (U.S. 1979)
- Webb v. Balson, 441 U.S. 964 (U.S. 1979)
- State v. Robinette, 652 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)