ALONZO CARNES, 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.
Alonzo Carnes challenged his convictions for sexual battery and incest, arguing that Florida's incest statute did not apply to half-siblings. The court affirmed his convictions and sentences, holding that the term "sister" in the incest statute includes half-sisters, as half-siblings are sufficiently close relatives to fall within the statute's protective scope.
The court held that the term "sister" in section 826.04, Florida Statutes (1995), includes a half-sister. The incest statute applies to half-siblings, defined as persons who have in common only one parent.
[1] The term "sister" in a statute prohibiting incest includes a half-sister.
[2] Statutes should be interpreted to avoid absurd results that are contrary to legislative intent.
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“We hold that the term "sister" in section 826.094 includes a half-sister. The obvious purpose of the incest statute is to address the evil of sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within specific degrees.”
Establishes the court's holding that half-siblings are included within the incest statute's protections.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlonzo Carnes was convicted of sexual battery and incest. The victim was his half-sister, sharing only the same father with Carnes. He was sentenced t…
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 Absurd Result Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Alonzo Carnes, challenges his convictions of sexual battery and incest and his habitual offender sentence of twenty years in prison. We affirm the convictions and the sentences.
Appellant raises one issue upon which we feel compelled to comment. Appellant was convicted of incest. The female victim and appellant had in common only the same father. Appellant asserts that the incest statute, section 826.04, Florida Statutes (1995), does not apply to half-siblings. We hold that it does apply to half-siblings, i.e. those persons who have in common only one parent.
Section 826.04, Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part: “Whoever knowingly marries or has sexual intercourse with a person to whom he is related by lineal consanguinity, or brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece, commits incest, which constitutes a felony_ ” The statute does not mention “half-sister” nor does it refer to any “half-blood” relatives. We hold, however, that the term “sister” in section 826.094 includes a half-sister. The obvious purpose of the incest statute is to address the evil of sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within specific degrees. A person’s half-sister is as a close a relative as an aunt or niece, both of which fall under the protection of the incest statute. Therefore, an interpretation of section 826.04 which would permit sexual intercourse with a person’s half-sister but which would prohibit sexual intercourse with that person’s niece or aunt would be an absurd interpretation and contrary to the legislature’s intent. The judiciary should avoid interpreting a statute in a manner which ascribes to the legislature an intent to create an absurd result. See Ferre v. State, 478 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Although this question is one of first impression in Florida, other states have determined that half-blood relatives are included within the protections of their respective incest statutes. See Singh v. Singh, 213 Conn. 637, 569 A. 2d 1112 (1990); State v. Skinner, 132 Conn. 163, 43 A. 2d 76 (1945); Commonwealth v. Ashey, 248 Mass. 259, 142 N.E. 788 (1924); State v. Wyman, 59 Vt. 527, 8 A. 900 (1887).
Other states have concluded that certain half-blood relatives are not included in their incest statutes. The statutes involved in these states, however, specifically included some half-blood relatives, thereby indicating an intention to exclude others. See Kansas v. Craig, 254 Kan. 575, 867 P. 2d 1013 (Kan.1994); People v. Baker, 69 Cal.2d 44, 69 Cal.Rptr. 595, 442 P. 2d 675 (1968); State v. Bartley, 304 Mo. 58, 263 S.W. 95 (1924). These cases are distinguishable from our ease because section 826.04 does not mention any half-blood relatives.
Accordingly, we conclude that appellant’s incest conviction was proper and we affirm the convictions and sentences in this ease.
Affirmed.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Anderson, 764 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…tic that the legislature does not intend to enact purposeless and useless legislation. See Unruh, 669 So. 2d at 245. Statutes will not be interpreted to create absurd results. See State v. Iacovone, 660 So. 2d 1371, 1373 (Fla.1995); Carnes v. State, 725 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Viles, 726 So. 2d 320, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Badaraco v. Suncoast Towers v. Assocs., 676 So. 2d 502, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Section 790.23 clearly states that it is unlawful for any convicted fel…
-
Debaun v. State, 213 So. 3d 747 (Fla. 2017)…the prevention of pregnancies which may involve a high risk of abnormal or defective offspring.’ ” Beam v. State, 1 So. 3d 331, 334 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (quoting Slaughter v. State, 538 So. 2d 509, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)); see also Carnes v. State, 725 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“The obvious purpose of the incest statute is to address the evil of sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within specific degrees.”). Section 384.24(2), which is located in a different chapter and…
-
Beam v. State, 1 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…e-in-law is clearly not alone sufficient ... to implicate the incest statute, section 826.04, Florida Statutes (1995) (requiring relationship of ‘uncle’ and ‘niece’).” Id. at 677 n. 2. Applying similar [*334] reasoning, the court in Carnes v. State, 725 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), concluded: [T]he term “sister” in section 826.094 includes a half-sister. The obvious purpose of the incest statute is to address the evil of sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within specific degre…
Authorities Cited
- Ferre v. State, 478 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)