IN THE INTEREST OF E. G., A CHILD, 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.
A 17-year-old was charged with prostitution but the trial court acquitted her of that charge and convicted her of disorderly conduct instead, placing her on probation. The appellate court reversed, holding that disorderly conduct is not a lesser included offense to prostitution and that the evidence, which showed only quiet and orderly prostitution, could not support a conviction for disorderly conduct.
Disorderly conduct is not a proper lesser included offense to prostitution. Since the evidence related solely to prostitution and showed nothing beyond prostitution, if the appellant was not guilty of prostitution, she was likewise not guilty of disorderly conduct. A conviction for disorderly conduct cannot be sustained when the evidence shows only quiet and orderly prostitution.
[1] A conviction for disorderly conduct cannot stand when the evidence presented only supports a charge of prostitution and the defendant is found not guilty of prostitution.
[2] Disorderly conduct, defined as acts corrupting public morals or outraging public decency, is not a lesser included offense of prostitution when the alleged prostitution o…
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“the evidence in this case admits to nothing more than that appellant allegedly engaged in prostitution in a quiet and orderly manner. Since the trial judge found her not guilty of prostitution, his finding that she was guilty of disorderly conduct is inconsistent with his first finding.”
Establishes the logical inconsistency in the trial court's verdicts and the basis for reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, a 17-year-old child, was charged with prostitution under Florida Statute § 796.07(3)(a) for allegedly offering to engage in sexual inte…
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 Disorderly Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
By petition the State charged that appellant, a child of seventeen years, was a delinquent child in that she engaged in prostitution in violation of § 796.07(3) (a), Florida Statutes. The trial judge found her not guilty of prostitution but guilty of “a lesser included offense, disorderly conduct” and entered an order withholding adjudication of delinquency and placing her on probation. Appellant contends that disorderly conduct is not a lesser included offense to the offense of prostitution and further contends that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty to the charge of disorderly conduct.
The petition charged that appellant “did then and there offer to commit, or engage in giving or receiving of the body for sexual intercourse for hire, contrary to § 796.-07(3) (a), Florida Statutes.” The foregoing statute states:
“(3) It shall further be unlawful in the state:
(a) To offer to commit, or to commit, or to engage in, prostitution, lewdness or assignation.”
Prostitution is defined by subsection (1) (a) of said section as follows:
“The term ‘prostitution’ shall be construed to include the giving or receiving of the body for sexual intercourse for hire, and shall also be construed to include the giving or receiving of the body for licentious sexual intercourse without hire.” Section 877.03, Florida Statutes, defines breach of the peace and disorderly conduct as follows:
“Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree . . . ”
While it would appear that one engaging in prostitution would at the same time be committing “such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency” and that in such sense disorderly conduct would be included in a charge of prostitution, the evidence in this case admits to nothing more than that appellant allegedly engaged in prostitution in a quiet and orderly manner. Since the trial judge found her not guilty of prostitution, his finding that she was guilty of disorderly conduct is inconsistent with his first finding. Because the evidence relates solely to prostitution and shows nothing beyond prostitution, if appellant is not guilty of prostitution, she is likewise not guilty of disorderly conduct.
It is apparent from the record that although the trial judge did not find appellant guilty of prostitution, he considered that the facts warranted supervision. He stated on the record that if he found under the law that he could not find appellant guilty of disorderly conduct, he “would request a petition for a child in need of supervision be filed.” We agree that the evidence shows that the child is in need of supervision but such cannot legally be accomplished here by a finding of guilt under the disorderly conduct statute.
Reversed.
RAWLS, C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1976)…e v. Magee, 259 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1972), this Court affirmed a conviction under Section 877.03 for fornication in the front seat of an automobile and “h[e]ld Fla.Stat. § 877.03, F.S.A., to be constitutional.” 259 So. 2d at 141. But cf. E. G. v. State, 326 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (disorderly conduct not a lesser included offense of prostitution where “appellant allegedly engaged in prostitution in a quiet and orderly manner.” at 446). In State ex rel. Springer v. Smith, 189 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966),…