Handwerk v. State

404 So. 2d 828, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 27950
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 13, 1981·No. No. 80-712·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

404 So. 2d 828 (Handwerk v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Ochoa
576 So. 2d 854 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Fridovich v. State
489 So. 2d 143 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)