Cordts v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cordts v. State

532 So. 2d 1363, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2482, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4922, 1988 WL 117621

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1817

StatusPublished

This text of 532 So. 2d 1363 (Cordts v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cordts v. State, 532 So. 2d 1363, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2482, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4922, 1988 WL 117621 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm defendant’s conviction for sexual battery of a child under 12 years of age. We do not agree with defendant’s contention that the crime of sexual battery under section 794.011, Florida Statutes (1985), is not committed when a so-called foreign object (here, defendant’s finger), and not a sexual organ, is used in the act of penetration unless there is an intent by the actor to obtain sexual gratification. State v. Alonso, 345 So.2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), is authority for that contention. As Judge Hubbart’s concurring opinion in Al-onso points out, the Third District Court of Appeal in that case “[b]y its decision ... has held that an essential element of the crime of sexual battery under Section 794.-011, Florida Statutes (1975), is a criminal intent to obtain sexual gratification, which element the state must allege and prove.” Id. at 743. However, in Aiken v. State, 390 So.2d 1186, 1187 (Fla.1980), the Florida Supreme Court specifically said, “The decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Alonso is overruled.” See also Judge Dauksch’s concurring opinion in State v. Aiken, 370 So.2d 1184, 1186-87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

We conclude that defendant’s other contention on appeal is without merit.

AFFIRMED.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm defendant’s conviction for sexual battery of a child under 12 years of age. We do not agree with defendant’s contention that the crime of sexual battery under section 794.011, Florida Statutes (1985), is not committed when a so-called foreign object (here, defendant’s finger), and not a sexual organ, is used in the act of penetration unless there is an intent by the actor to obtain sexual gratification. State v. Alonso, 345 So.2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), is authority for that contention. As Judge Hubbart’s concurring opinion in Al-onso points out, the Third District Court of Appeal in that case “[b]y its decision ... has held that an essential element of the crime of sexual battery under Section 794.-011, Florida Statutes (1975), is a criminal intent to obtain sexual gratification, which element the state must allege and prove.” Id. at 743. However, in Aiken v. State, 390 So.2d 1186, 1187 (Fla.1980), the Florida Supreme Court specifically said, “The decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Alonso is overruled.” See also Judge Dauksch’s concurring opinion in State v. Aiken, 370 So.2d 1184, 1186-87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

We conclude that defendant’s other contention on appeal is without merit.

AFFIRMED.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 So. 2d 1363, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2482, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4922, 1988 WL 117621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordts-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack