State v. Lanier, 464 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Lanier, 464 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: STATE OF FLORIDA v. ANDREW SCOTT CROSE (fladistctapp, 2024-01-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF FLORIDA v. ANDREW SCOTT CROSE
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Co., 945 So. 2d 1216, 1230 (Fla. 2006) (explaining that "it may be within this Court’s discretion to look to the Legislature’s recent amendment of section 624.155 to assist in construing the term 'insured' " (emphasis added)); State v. Lanier, 464 So. 2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 1985) (“[W]e are not bound by statements of legislative intent uttered subsequent to either the enactment of a statute or the actions which allegedly violate the statute."); Dean Wish, LLC v. Lee County, 326 So. 3d 840 , 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) ("Because the Act's language before us is clear, we need not look at the 2021 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Coley v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Ch. 92-135 (preamble), Laws of Fla. Cf. State v. Lanier, 464 So.2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 1985) (statute in effect at time of crime is controlling; where supreme court has not previously interpreted statute, supreme court may consider later enacted expression of legislative intent in arriving at authoritative interpretation). [13] The sexual battery statute provides: Evidence of the victim's mental incapacity or defect is admissible to prove that the consent was not intelligent, knowing, or voluntary; and the court shall instruct the jury accordingly.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) O'BRIGHT v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
After the 1984 amendment to section 800.04, however, and based explicitly on the legislature's expression of statutory intent in chapter 84-86, the supreme court quashed the third district's decision, holding *389 that "section 800.04 both prior to and subsequent to the 1984 amendment is violated when a male engages in sexual intercourse with a twelve-year-old girl despite the fact that the victim was previously unchaste and the sexual intercourse was consensual." State v. Lanier, 464 So.2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hightower v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
Lanier held that section 800.04 "both prior to and subsequent to the 1984 Amendment is violated when a male engages in sexual intercourse with a twelve-year-old girl... ." Id. at 1193.
cited Cited "see" State v. Debaun
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lanier v. State, 443 So.2d 178, 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (quoting Williams v. State, 109 So. at 306 , quashed, 464 So.2d 1192 (Fla.1985)).
cited Cited "see" Welsh v. State
Fla. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lanier, 464 So.2d at 1193 .
discussed Cited "see" Seagrave v. State
Fla. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See ch. 84-328, Laws of Fla. [11] The legislative history to this amendment indicates that the amendment was enacted in response to the Third District's decision in Lanier v. State, 443 So.2d 178, 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), quashed, 464 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 1985), in which the court held that having consensual sexual intercourse with an unchaste twelve-year-old girl did not constitute an offense of handling or fondling in a lewd, lascivious or indecent manner or the offense of making an assault in a lewd, lascivious or indecent manner under section 800.04.
cited Cited "see" Johnson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lanier v. State, 464 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 1985) (courts will show great deference to laws passed to clarify existing law).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Carsillo v. City of Lake Worth
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Lanier, 464 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 1985).
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Jerome LANIER, Respondent.
64853.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb 28, 1985.
464 So. 2d 1192
Adkins.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Diane Leeds, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for respondent.

[*1193] ADKINS, Justice.

The following question has been certified as being of great public importance:

MAY A DEFENDANT WHO IS CHARGED BY INFORMATION ALLEGING THAT HE DID UNLAWFULLY HANDLE, FONDLE OR MAKE AN ASSAULT UPON A TWELVE-YEAR-OLD GIRL `BY ENGAGING IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE' BE CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF SECTION 800.04, FLORIDA STATUTES (1981), WHERE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS REVEAL THAT THE TWELVE-YEAR-OLD WAS PREVIOUSLY UNCHASTE AND THE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WAS CONSENSUAL?

The Third District Court of Appeal answered the question in the negative. Lanier v. State, 443 So.2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and we answer the question in the affirmative.

Section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1983), punishes lewd, lascivious or indecent assaults or acts upon or in the presence of a child. Shortly after the certification of this question, the Florida legislature convened and passed an amendment to section 800.04, which was designed to specifically cover the acts committed in the instant case.

Section 800.04 was amended, in part, to read:

(3) Neither the victim's lack of chastity nor the victim's consent is a defense to the crime proscribed by this section.

The legislature indicated its desire to correct the Third District Court of Appeal's misguided interpretation of the legislative intent behind section 800.04 by amending this section shortly after the question was certified. The preamble to chapter 84-86, Laws of Florida, amending section 800.04 notes:

WHEREAS, the intent of the Legislature was and remains to prohibit lewd and lascivious acts upon children, including sexual intercourse and other acts defined as sexual battery, without regard either to the victim's consent or of the victim's prior chastity.

(Emphasis added.)

We must apply section 800.04 as it existed at the time the allegedly lewd and lascivious acts occurred, prior to the enactment of the amendment. Further, we are not bound by statements of legislative intent uttered subsequent to either the enactment of a statute or the actions which allegedly violate the statute. However, we will show great deference to such statements, especially in a case such as this, when the enactment of an amendment to a statute is passed merely to clarify existing law. Cf. Williams v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 382 So.2d 1216, 1220 (Fla. 1980). (An amendment to a statute clarifying the scope of underinsured motorist insurance coverage did not alter the scope of such coverage as it existed prior to the enactment of the amendment because the amendment merely served to clarify the extent of coverage as it previously existed.)

Therefore, we hold that section 800.04 both prior to and subsequent to the 1984 amendment is violated when a male engages in sexual intercourse with a twelve-year-old girl despite the fact that the victim was previously unchaste and the sexual intercourse was consensual.

For the reasons stated, the decision of the district court is quashed and the cause is remanded with instructions to affirm the order of the trial court.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.