213 So. 3d 747
Fla.2017Background
- Gary Debaun, HIV-positive, provided a forged lab report claiming he was HIV-negative and engaged in oral and anal sex with C.M.; C.M. later learned of the forgery and reported the offense.
- Debaun was charged under §384.24(2) (2011) for knowingly having "sexual intercourse" without informing a partner of HIV and obtaining consent.
- Debaun moved to dismiss arguing "sexual intercourse" in §384.24(2) means only penile–vaginal penetration; trial court granted dismissal relying on the Second District’s decision in L.A.P. v. State.
- The Third District reversed, holding "sexual intercourse" includes oral and anal acts regardless of participants’ genders, and certified conflict with L.A.P.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict and considered dictionary definitions, legislative history, public health goals, and related statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "sexual intercourse" in §384.24(2) is limited to penile–vaginal penetration | Debaun: term should be read as the incest statute definition — penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ only | State: plain meaning and context encompass genital, oral, and anal intercourse regardless of gender; limiting the term frustrates public health purpose | Court held "sexual intercourse" includes conduct beyond heterosexual penile–vaginal intercourse (oral and anal included) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Debaun, 129 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 2013) (holding §384.24(2) covers oral and anal intercourse and approving Third District decision)
- L.A.P. v. State, 62 So. 3d 693 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (Second District held "sexual intercourse" limited to penile–vaginal penetration)
- State v. D.C., 114 So. 3d 440 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (Fifth District held §384.24(2) includes oral and anal intercourse)
- Paul v. State, 129 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles — plain meaning controls absent absurdity)
- Burris v. State, 875 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2004) (courts must give effect to legislative intent and plain language)
- Hawker v. State, 951 So. 2d 945 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (uses "sexual intercourse" to refer to conduct between two males)
- Grohs v. State, 944 So. 2d 450 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (refers to "sexual intercourse" involving two males)