STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ABRAM M. BLAND, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida's appellate court affirmed dismissal of sexual battery charges because the undisputed facts failed to establish the victim was mentally defective as required by statute, avoiding the constitutional question.
The trial court properly dismissed sexual battery charges when the undisputed facts did not establish that the victim was mentally defective as required by Florida Statutes section 794.011(4)(e).
[1] When undisputed facts fail to establish that a victim was mentally defective, a sexual battery charge under Florida Statutes section 794.011(4)(e) must be dismissed regar…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee was charged with sexual battery on a mentally defective person. The trial court granted appellee's motion to dismiss, finding the statute unc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Avoidance Of Constitutional Questions cases and more on FLexlaw
In this direct criminal appeal, the state seeks review of an order granting appel-lee’s motion to dismiss the information charging appellee with sexual battery on a mentally defective person. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(A). See State v. Feagle, 604 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Although the trial court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss upon finding that section 794.011(4)(e), Florida Statutes (2007), was unconstitutional as applied to appellee’s sexual acts with the victim, we decline to address this constitutional question because the case can be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds. See In re Holder, 945 So.2d 1130, 1133 (Fla.2006) (noting that the court will avoid considering a constitutional question when the case can be decided on nonconstitu-tional grounds); Singletary v. State, 322 So.2d 551, 552 (Fla.1975) (adhering to the “settled principle of constitutional law that courts should not pass upon the constitutionality of statutes if the case in which the question arises may be effectively disposed of on other grounds.”). We affirm the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss because the undisputed facts did not establish a prima facie case that the victim was “mentally defective.” See State v. Torresgrossa, 776 So.2d 1009, 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Mathis v. State, 682 So.2d 175, 180-81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nadene Singletary v. State, 322 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1975)
- Inquiry Concerning A Judge, 945 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2006)
- Mathis v. State, 682 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- State v. Feagle, 604 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- State v. Torresgrossa, 776 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)