Saleem v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Saleem v. State

773 So. 2d 89, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12615, 2000 WL 1448514

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 29, 2000

DocketNo. 5D00-47

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 773 So. 2d 89 (Saleem 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

Saleem v. State, 773 So. 2d 89, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12615, 2000 WL 1448514 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, M„ Senior Judge.

Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence on a charge of capital sexual battery of an eight year old female. We affirm.

He first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal made after the close of the state’s case and at time of sentencing. The victim testified to the digital penetration of her vagina by the defendant. A victim’s testimony concerning a sexual battery, if clear as to the identity of the perpetrator, is legally sufficient to sustain [90]*90a conviction and requires no medical or other corroboration. See § 794.022(1), Fla. Stat. (1999); Thomas v. State, 167 So.2d 309 (Fla.1964); Robinson v. State, 462 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Moreover, there was medical testimony based on a physical examination conducted several hours after the alleged incident, that redness inside the victim’s vagina could have been caused by digital manipulation. This evidence of penetration was sufficient to create a jury question. See J.W.C. v. State, 573 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Cf. Richards v. State, 738 So.2d 415 (Fla.2d DCA 1999).

We find no merit in appellant’s remaining issues.

W. SHARP, and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

ORFINGER, M„ Senior Judge.

Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence on a charge of capital sexual battery of an eight year old female. We affirm.

He first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal made after the close of the state’s case and at time of sentencing. The victim testified to the digital penetration of her vagina by the defendant. A victim’s testimony concerning a sexual battery, if clear as to the identity of the perpetrator, is legally sufficient to sustain [90]*90a conviction and requires no medical or other corroboration. See § 794.022(1), Fla. Stat. (1999); Thomas v. State, 167 So.2d 309 (Fla.1964); Robinson v. State, 462 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Moreover, there was medical testimony based on a physical examination conducted several hours after the alleged incident, that redness inside the victim’s vagina could have been caused by digital manipulation. This evidence of penetration was sufficient to create a jury question. See J.W.C. v. State, 573 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Cf. Richards v. State, 738 So.2d 415 (Fla.2d DCA 1999).

We find no merit in appellant’s remaining issues.

W. SHARP, and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 So. 2d 89, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12615, 2000 WL 1448514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saleem-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack