MADISON MORGAN ZIEGLER, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Freeman v. State, 969 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
  …” It has been said that this rule ‘is particularly applicable to criminal statutes in which the specific provisions relating to particular subjects carry smaller penalties than the general provision.’ (Citations omitted). See also Burnett v. State, 737 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The State argues that “[t]here first must be a hopeless inconsistency between the two statutes before rules of construction are applied to defeat the express language of one of those statutes.” State v. Parsons, 569 So. 2…
• State v. Maloy, 823 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
  …narily gives controlling effect to the particular and specific statutory proscriptions addressing acts which otherwise might also be circumscribed by more general criminal provisions. See Adams v. Culver, 111 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1959); Burnett v. State, 737 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see also State v. Croy, 813 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). This also accords with the rule of lenity, which instructs that criminal statutes susceptible of differing constructions are to be interpreted in a manner most favorabl…
• Morris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
  …that was in fact brought. What was charged here was a violation exclusively of section 800.04(4), Florida Statutes (1997), which we have construed to exclude anything specifically prohibited by some other statutory provision. See Burnett v. State, 737 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Exposing adult genitalia to a child has been held to violate section 800.04(4), Florida Statutes (1997). See Roberts v. State, 620 So. 2d 1082, 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Otherwise, the apparent function of former section 80…

Authorities Cited

• Mermel v. Rifkin, 603 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
• Madison Morgan Ziegler v. State, 708 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
• Ensley v. State, 708 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)