NOEL TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed Taylor's assault conviction but reversed his indecent exposure conviction because the evidence was insufficient to prove he exposed his genitals in a public place as defined by statute.
Evidence was insufficient to support an indecent exposure conviction where the record did not establish that the defendant exposed his sexual organs in a place intended or designed to be frequented by the public.
[1] Under Florida Statute § 800.03, indecent exposure requires proof that the defendant exposed or exhibited sexual organs in a place intended or designed to be frequented or…
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“any place intended or designed to be frequented or resorted to by the public”
Definition of 'public place' from Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal) 11.9, which is the relevant standard for indecent exposure prosecutions.
Noel Taylor was convicted of both indecent exposure and assault. The indecent exposure charge involved alleged exposure of sexual organs.…
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 Indecent Exposure cases and more on FLexlaw
Noel Taylor appeals from his convictions and sentences for indecent exposure and assault. We find no merit in the arguments raised with regard to his conviction and sentence on the assault charge and therefore affirm the conviction and sentence on that count without discussion. However, we reverse Taylor’s conviction and sentence for indecent exposure because the evidence adduced below, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, was insufficient to demonstrate that Taylor exposed or exhibited his sexual organs in a place intended or designed to be frequented or resorted to by the public. See § 800.03, Fla. Stat. (2012) (in pertinent part, making it “unlawful to expose or exhibit one’s sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises”); Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Criminal) 11.9 (defining a “public place” as “any place intended or designed to be frequented or resorted to by the public”); Basulto-Rodriguez v. State, 95 So.3d 403, 406 n. 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“We review de novo the trial court’s denial of a motion for JOA, to determine solely whether the evidence is legally sufficient. In reviewing the denial of the motion, we consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the State as the non-moving party.”) (internal citations omitted.); A.S.F. v. State, 70 So.3d 754, 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (same).
Accordingly, Taylor’s convictions and sentences are affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- A.S.F. v. State, 70 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Basulto-Rodriguez v. State, 95 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)