CLAYTON EATON, 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.
Clayton Eaton was convicted of sexual battery on a child based on a jury instruction that allowed conviction under an alternative theory (sexual union) not alleged in the charging information, which specified only sexual penetration. The court reversed the conviction as fundamental error, finding that instructing the jury on an uncharged alternative theory violates settled Florida law.
Yes. The trial court committed fundamental error when it instructed the jury on an alternative theory of sexual union not charged in the information. Because the jury returned a general guilty verdict without specifying which theory was the basis for conviction, it is impossible to determine whether the conviction was based on the charged offense or the uncharged alternative, requiring reversal.
[1] A trial court commits fundamental error by instructing the jury on an alternative theory of committing an offense not charged in the information.
[2] Where an information alleges only sexual penetration, a jury instruction permitting conviction based on sexual union constitutes fundamental error.
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“where an offense can be committed in more than one way, the trial court commits fundamental error when it instructs the jury on an alternative theory not charged in the information”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for the case, citing Vega v. State and other Florida precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEaton was charged with two counts of sexual battery on a child aged 12-18 in a position of familial or custodial authority. The first count informatio…
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 On A Child cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant seeks review of one of two convictions for sexual battery on a child at least 12 years of age but less than 18 years of age by a person in a position of familial or custodial authority. He claims that the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury that it could convict him of sexual battery by finding sexual union or penetration when the information alleged only sexual penetration. We agree. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the challenged conviction and remand for a new trial.
Appellant was charged with two counts of sexual battery on a child at least 12 years of age but less than 18 years of age by a person in a position of familial or custodial authority. The first count of the information, which is the subject of this appeal, alleged that appellant “engaged in sexual activity with the [victim] by penetration of [the victim]’s mouth by [his] penis.... ” At trial, the court instructed, without objection, that the jury could find appellant guilty on the first count if it found that appellant “committed an act upon [the victim] in which the sexual organ of [appellant] penetrated or had union with the mouth of [the victim]” (emphasis added). The jury returned a verdict finding appellant guilty as charged as to that count. This appeal follows.
The law is well settled in Florida that where an offense can be committed in more than one way, the trial court commits fundamental error when it instructs the jury on an alternative theory not charged in the information. Vega v. State, 900 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Mitchell v. State, 888 So. 2d 665, 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), review denied, 902 So. 2d 790 (Fla.2005); Hodges v. State, 878 So. 2d 401, 402 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 890 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.2004); Griffis v. State, 848 So. 2d 422, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Dixon v. State, 823 So. 2d 792, 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Braggs v. State, 789 So. 2d 1151, 1153-54 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Taylor v. State, 760 So. 2d 298, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); O’Bryan v. State, 692 So. 2d 290, 290-91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Based on this authority, we are constrained to conclude that the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury on an alternative theory (sexual union) not charged in the first count of the information. Since the jury returned a general verdict of guilty as to that count, it is impossible to determine whether appellant was convicted of a charged or an uncharged offense. O’Bryan, 692 So. 2d at 291. Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction as to the first count of the infor mation and remand for a new trial on that count only.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Beasley v. State, 971 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…one way, the trial court commits fundamental error when it instructs the jury on an alternative theory not charged in the information” and the jury returns a general verdict of guilty without specifying the basis for the conviction. Eaton v. State, 908 So. 2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); see, e.g., Vega v. State, 900 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding fundamental error where jury instructed on alternate theory not [*230] charged in the information); Braggs v. State, 789 So. 2d 1151, 1154 (Fla. 3d…
-
Jomolla v. State, 990 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…ense can be committed in more than one way, the trial court instructs the jury on an alternative theory not charged in the information, and the jury returns a general verdict of guilty without specifying the basis for the conviction. Eaton v. State, 908 So. 2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (finding fundamental error where the jury was instructed on an alternative theory not charged in the information); see also Debose v. State, 920 So. 2d 169, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); [*1238] Braggs v. State, 789 So. 2d 1151,…
-
Debose v. State, 920 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…n one way, the trial court commits fundamental error when it instructs the jury on an alternative theory not charged in the information” and the jury returns a general verdict of guilt without specifying the basis for the conviction. Eaton v. State, 908 So. 2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (finding fundamental error where jury instructed on alternate theory not charged in the information); Vega v. State, 900 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 2d [*170] DCA 2004) (finding fundamental error where jury instructed on alternat…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Dixon v. State, 823 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Boca Raton Small Engines & Emp'rs Self Ins. Fund v. Bellak, 692 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Levy v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 902 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2005)
- Geronimo Vega v. State, 900 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Braggs v. State, 789 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Montanez v. State, 760 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Hodges v. State, 878 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Fulcher v. State, 890 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Brewer, 848 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Griffis v. State, 848 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)