AMOS WITHERSPOON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; HAROLD LITTLE, 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.
The court held that the words 'unnatural and lascivious' in Fla.Stat. § 800.02 are not unconstitutionally vague.
[1] Statutes prohibiting "unnatural and lascivious" acts are not unconstitutionally vague.
[2] The terms "unnatural and lascivious" are sufficiently clear for an ordinary person to understand the prohibited conduct.
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 intelligenceAppellants were arrested for an act they did not dispute the nature of, but challenged the statute under which they were charged. They argued the stat…
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 Florida Declaration Of Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a direct appeal from the Metropolitan Court for Dade County which passed on the validity of Fla.Stat. § 800.02, F. S.A. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Fla.Const., art. V, § 3(b) (1), F.S.A.
The statute provides:
“Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree.”
Appellants, Witherspoon and Little, do not question the nature of the act for which they were arrested, but rather, the validity of the statute on its face. They contend that the words “unnatural and lascivious” are so vague as to make an ordinary person guess at their meaning, and so broad as to invade the right of privacy and the constitutional rights of individuals guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Rights of the State of Florida.
A similar attack was raised against the use of the words “lewd and lascivious” in Fla.Stat. § 800.04, F.S.A., but this Court held the words sufficient in Chesebrough v. State, 255 So.2d 675 (Fla.1971).
Under a factual situation almost identical to the case sub judiee, in Franklin v. State, 257 So.2d 21 (Fla.1971), the words “abominable and detestable crime against nature” in Fla.Stat. § 800.01, F.S.A., were held to be' fatally vague. However, in so ruling, we approved the language of the statute here under review, Fla.Stat. § 800.02, F.S.A., by ordering the defendants in Franklin v. State, supra, sentenced under that statute. See also: Morris v. State, 261 So.2d 563 (Fla.App.2d, 1972).
Thus, we reaffirm our holding in Chesebrough v. State, supra, and Franklin v. State, supra, that the words “unnatural and lascivious” or “lewd and lascivious” are of such a character that an ordinary citizen can easily determine what character of act is intended, and are thus secure from constitutional attack.
Accordingly, the decision of the Municipal Court for Dade County appealed from is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Sarasota Cnty. v. Barg, 302 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1974)…v. Mayhew (Fla.1973), 288 So. 2d 243; Smith v. State (Fla. 1970), 237 So. 2d 139; Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell (Fla.1972), 262 So. 2d 881, 884; Chesebrough v. State (Fla.1971), 255 So. 2d 675, and Little v. State (Fla.1973), 278 So. 2d 611. It is puzzlingly incongruous in this Court’s decisions concerning statutory vagueness that the cases just cited give a liberal construction to penal statutes affecting personal liberty but in cases such as the instant case statutes regulating prope…
-
Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1975)…and lascivious act with another' person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree . . . .” This Court recently held that the words “unnatural and lascivious”, as used in Section 800.02, were not void for vagueness. Witherspoon v. State, 278 So. 2d 611 (Fla.1973). That decision was followed in State v. Fasano, 284 So. 2d 683 (Fla.1973). The gist of appellant’s argument here is that we should recede from those decisions, and that we should liken the words in this statute to the words “abominable an…1 / 2
-
Bell v. State, 289 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1973)…l non of Section 800.02 which provides: “Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person shall [*390] be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree.” we adhere to our recent decision in Witherspoon v. State; Little v. State, 278 So. 2d 611 (Fla.1973), wherein we upheld the constitutionality of Section 800.02 against an attack of vagueness and overbreadth and stated: “Thus, we reaffirm our holding in Chesebrough v. State, supra [255 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1971)], and Franklin v. State, supra…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1971)
- Alva Gene Franklin v. State, 257 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1971)
- Morris v. State, 261 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)