Handwerk v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Handwerk v. State

404 So. 2d 828, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 27950

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1981

DocketNo. 80-712

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 404 So. 2d 828 (Handwerk 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

Handwerk v. State, 404 So. 2d 828, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 27950 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on the grounds that the testimony of the expert witness — a medical doctor qualified as an expert in matters of involuntary sexual battery — that there was injury to the child’s anal cavity and that the injury was inconsistent with accident or self-infliction, but was consistent with an intentional penetration by another person sufficiently established the corpus delicti as a predicate for admitting defendant’s confession, see e.g., Vaillancourt v. State, 288 So.2d 216 (Fla.1974); Holland v. State, 359 So.2d 28 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So.2d 1124 (Fla.1979); Eierle v. State, 358 So.2d 1160 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 884 (Fla.1978). The time period stated within the indictment as the date of offense is not a necessary element to establishing the corpus delicti.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on the grounds that the testimony of the expert witness — a medical doctor qualified as an expert in matters of involuntary sexual battery — that there was injury to the child’s anal cavity and that the injury was inconsistent with accident or self-infliction, but was consistent with an intentional penetration by another person sufficiently established the corpus delicti as a predicate for admitting defendant’s confession, see e.g., Vaillancourt v. State, 288 So.2d 216 (Fla.1974); Holland v. State, 359 So.2d 28 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So.2d 1124 (Fla.1979); Eierle v. State, 358 So.2d 1160 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 884 (Fla.1978). The time period stated within the indictment as the date of offense is not a necessary element to establishing the corpus delicti.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 So. 2d 828, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 27950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handwerk-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack