Francis Wong v. State of Florida, 212 So. 3d 351

Francis Wong was tried and convicted of multiple counts of lewd or lascivious molestation and one count of lewd or lascivious battery involving child victims; convictions and life/term sentences followed.
Defense counsel requested, at the charge conference, Florida Standard Jury Instruction 11.8 (unnatural and lascivious act) as a category-two permissive lesser-included offense for several counts, explaining the information and evidence supported it.
The trial judge replied, "I don't have to give a lesser for category two," did not include the instruction in the charge, and defense counsel did not further object before the jury retired.
On appeal the Second District held Wong waived the claim because the trial court did not make an explicit ruling and counsel failed to object again; a concurring/dissenting judge disagreed.
The Florida Supreme Court accepted conflict review, held the Second District's standard conflicted with State v. Heathcoat and other precedent, found Wong preserved the request, concluded the permissive lesser instruction was required, and ordered a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wong)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Wong preserved error by requesting a permissive lesser included instruction when the court did not explicitly rule and counsel made no further objection	Defense counsel made a specific oral request referencing Std. Instr. 11.8 and explained statutory and evidentiary grounds; the court understood and effectively denied it, so no further objection was required	The conference exchange was insufficient to preserve the claim because the court never made an explicit ruling and defense counsel failed to contemporaneously object again before charge completion	Preserved: where record shows a specific request, grounds given, and the court understood and denied it, further objection is not required (Heathcoat governs)
Whether the requested "unnatural and lascivious act" instruction was a permissive lesser included offense of the charged lewd or lascivious offenses	The information alleged all elements of the misdemeanor (oral/skin contact) and trial evidence supported those elements, so the instruction was a permissive category-two lesser and must be given on request	Initially conceded below but later disputed; argued stricter preservation or different applicability in some contexts	Entitled to the instruction: when the information alleges all elements and there is some evidence supporting them, the trial court must give the permissive lesser on request; failure to do so is reversible error and requires a new trial

State v. Heathcoat, 442 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1983) (contemporaneous objection rule satisfied when record shows specific request, court understood and clearly denied it)
Khianthalat v. State, 974 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2008) (two-part test for permissive lesser: information alleges all elements and some evidence supports them)
Sanders v. State, 944 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2006) (definition and framework for permissive lesser included offenses)
Amado v. State, 585 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1991) (failure to give requested permissive lesser included instruction is reversible error requiring new trial)