DM v. State
This text of 712 So. 2d 1204 (DM 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.
Opinion
D.M., A Child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Sec. 796.07(2)(f) makes it unlawful "... to solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution, lewdness, or assignation." Appellant's contention is that a charge of enticing to lewdness is not a crime under the statute where there is no proof of prostitution. We disagree. The word "or" is generally construed in the disjunctive when used in a statute or rule, and normally means that alternatives were intended. Sparkman v. McClure, 498 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1986). The statute in question makes it a crime to entice another to any of the prohibited acts.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., ANTOON, J. and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
712 So. 2d 1204, 1998 WL 320158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dm-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.