Glover v. State, 863 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Glover v. State, 863 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (39 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Netrievae White v. State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2016-01-06)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Netrievae White v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
This crime is defined as: “[a] person 18 years of age or older who *1170 commits sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age commits a capital felony.” § 794,011(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). “[T]he age of the defendant is an element of capital sexual battery under section 794.011(2).” Glover v. State, 863 So.2d 236, 238 (Fla.2003). 1 The state failed to present any evidence of White’s age other than the jury’s ability .to observe him during the trial.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bradley v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
See Insko v. State, 969 So.2d 992 (Fla.2007) (agreeing that defendant's age was element of offense of lewd or lascivious conduct, but nonetheless concluding that defendant was not entitled to relief because he failed to object to jury instruction, thereby waiving any claim to relief); see also Pena v. State, 901 So.2d 781, 784 (Fla.2005) (holding that the failure to instruct the jury that the defendant's age is an element of first-degree murder by drug distribution was not fundamental, and nothing that element was undisputed and no timely objection was raised); Glover v. State, 863 So.2d 236, …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Insko v. State
Fla. · 2007 · confidence medium
State v. Weaver, 957 So.2d 586, 588 (Fla.2007); see also Pena v. State, 901 So.2d 781, 784 (Fla.2005) (holding that the failure to instruct the jury that the defendant's age is an element of first-degree murder by drug distribution was not fundamental, and noting that the element was undisputed and no timely objection was raised); Glover, 863 So.2d at 238 (holding that the defendant's age is an element of capital sexual battery, but affirming the conviction because the failure to so instruct the jury was not fundamental where the element was undisputed).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jennings v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Cf. State v. Barnum, 921 So.2d 513, 516-17 , 2005 WL 2296638 (Fla. Sept. 22, 2005); Thompson v. State, 695 So.2d 691, 692 (Fla.1997) (both holding that knowledge of victim's status as a law enforcement officer is an element of the crime of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer); Glover v. State, 863 So.2d 236, 238 (Fla.2003) (holding that age is an element of the crime of sexual battery).
discussed Cited "see" In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-INSTRUCTIONS 7.8, 7.8(A), and 11.1-11.6(A)
Fla. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Instruction 11.16 or 11.16(a) if the State charged that the defendant qualified as a Dangerous Sexual Felony Offender, pursuant to § 794.0115, Fla. Stat. This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1987 [ 508 So.2d 1221 ], 1995 [ 657 So.2d 1152 ], 2007 [ 863 So.2d 236 ],and 2015 [ 156 So.3d 1037 ], and 2016. 11.2 SEXUAL BATTERY — VICTIM 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER-GREAT FORCE OR DEADLY WEAPON § 794.011(3), Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Sexual Battery upon a Person 12 Years of Age or Older with the Use of [a Deadly Weapon] [or] [Physical Force Likely to Cause Serious Persona…
discussed Cited "see" Galindez v. State
Fla. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Glover v. State, 863 So.2d 236, 237-38 (Fla.2003) (approving the district court's holding that the age of the defendant is an element of capital sexual battery but that any error in failing to instruct on this undisputed element was harmless); see also State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 645 (Fla.1991) (stating that the failure "to instruct on an element of the crime over which the record reflects there was no dispute is not fundamental error" and is subject to the contemporaneous objection rule).
cited Cited "see" State v. D.A.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Glover, 863 So.2d at 238 .
cited Cited "see" State v. DA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Glover, 863 So. 2d at 238 .
cited Cited "see" Rosen v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pena, 901 So.2d at 784 (citing Glover v. State, 863 So.2d 236, 238 (Fla.2003)).
discussed Cited "see" Perritte v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Glover v. State, 863 So.2d 236, 238 (Fla.2003) (holding that although the defendant's age is a statutory element of capital sexual battery, failure to include the age element in the jury instructions was not fundamental error where the defendant's age was not a disputed fact).
discussed Cited "see" Pena v. State
Fla. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Glover v. State, 863 So.2d 236, 238 (Fla.2003) (holding that although the defendant's age is a statutory element of capital sexual battery, failure to include the age element in the jury instructions was not fundamental error where the defendant's age was not a disputed fact).
cited Cited "see" Martin v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Glover v. State, 863 So.2d 236 (Fla.2003).
cited Cited "see" Vega v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Glover v. State, 863 So.2d 236 (Fla.2003) (affirming conviction because failure to instruct jury that defendant's age was an element of the offense was harmless).
cited Cited "see" Williams v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Glover v. State, 815 So.2d 698 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), approved, 863 So.2d 236 (Fla.2003).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." JAE-IL BYUN v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Attempted lewd battery, however, requires proof that the intended child victim is at least twelve years' old but less than sixteen years' old. § 800.04(4)(a)(1); see also Glover v. State, 863 So. 2d 236, 238 (Fla. 2003) (holding that age of the victim is an essential element of capital sexual battery).
Bruce W. GLOVER, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
SC02-1064.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct 2, 2003.
863 So. 2d 236
Per Curiam.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Marvin F. Clegg, Assistant Public Defender,[*237] Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, FL, for Petitioner.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Glover v. State, 815 So.2d 698 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), which expressly and directly conflicts with Jesus v. State, 565 So.2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the following reasons, we approve the decision in the instant case and disapprove the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in Jesus.

FACTS

In April 2000, Bruce Glover was charged with capital sexual battery under section 794.011(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). In the information, the State alleged that the victim was under twelve years of age and that Glover was over eighteen years of age. Glover was thirty-five years old at the time he committed the offense. During the trial, the parties did not dispute that Glover was over eighteen. Glover was ultimately convicted of capital sexual battery and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Glover appealed his conviction to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, arguing that his conviction was invalid because the trial court did not specifically instruct the jury that the age of the defendant was an element of the offense of capital sexual battery that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court agreed and held that age is in fact an element of capital sexual battery.

Indeed, it seems that if the age of the victim (under twelve) is an element of the offense (and this is recognized by the Standard Jury Instruction on sexual battery of a victim under twelve which was given by the court in the instant case), then the age of the defendant, set out in the same section of the statute creating the offense, should also be.

Glover, 815 So.2d at 699. In so holding, the district court noted that its holding was consistent with the decisions in Baker v. State, 604 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), and D'Ambrosio v. State, 736 So.2d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The court, however, recognized conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in Jesus.

Although the Fifth District held that age is an element of the crime of sexual battery, the court concluded that any error in the trial court's instruction was harmless in this case. The district court reasoned that even though the trial court did not label Glover's age as an element, it clearly advised the jury that Glover had to be over eighteen to be convicted of the main charge. The court stated that under the facts of this case, "the jury could not reasonably have found [Glover] to have been less than eighteen. For several days, they viewed this thirty-seven year old defendant sitting in the court room. Further, [Glover's] booking admission that he was born in 1964 was admitted into evidence, and there was no evidence to the contrary." Glover, 815 So.2d at 700. The court therefore upheld Glover's conviction.

Glover sought review of the Fifth District's decision in this Court, alleging conflict with Jesus v. State, 565 So.2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), in which the Fourth District held that age is not an element of capital sexual battery. We granted jurisdiction on the basis of that conflict.

We resolve the conflict between the opinions of the Fifth District in this case and the Third District in Baker and the[*238] opinion of the Fourth District in Jesus by approving the Fifth District and Third District's holding that the age of the defendant is an element of capital sexual battery under section 794.011(2).

We approve the Fifth District's decision to affirm Glover's conviction in this case on the basis of Reed v. State, 837 So.2d 366 (Fla.2002). Glover's claim was based upon fundamental error in the standard jury instruction. Glover's age of over eighteen years was, however, not a disputed element.

We therefore approve the Fifth District's decision in this case and the Third District's decision in Baker to the extent those decisions are consistent with this opinion. We disapprove Jesus to the extent that decision is inconsistent with this opinion. We decline to address the remaining issues raised by Glover that are unrelated to the conflict issue.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.