271 So. 3d 164
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Oct. 1, 2013, two nursing-facility employees saw Juan Mesen with an elderly woman in a wheelchair off the facility grounds; they observed Mesen's fly unzipped and the victim's arm moving into his pants but did not see his genitals.
- Mesen admitted the victim put her hand over his genitals while his pants remained on; he denied exposing himself and said he was doing range-of-motion exercises and had urinary issues.
- The State charged Mesen with lewd or lascivious battery on an elderly/disabled person and lewd or lascivious exhibition in the presence of an elderly/disabled person under § 825.1025.
- The trial court granted acquittal on the battery count but denied it on the exhibition count; a jury convicted Mesen of exhibition and the court denied a renewed judgment of acquittal.
- On appeal the central question was whether the statute’s term “exposes his or her genitals” requires visual display (genitals visible) or can be satisfied by enabling the victim to touch covered genitals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proof that defendant enabled victim to touch his covered genitals satisfies the statute’s element that defendant “exposes his or her genitals” | State: “exposes” may be satisfied if defendant unzipped pants and put genitals within the victim’s reach so she could touch them (exposure via touch) | Mesen: “exposes” requires making genitals visually observable; witnesses never saw genitals | Court: “exposes” (and “exhibition”) requires visibility; evidence insufficient because no testimony that genitals were visible → reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (standard of review for judgment of acquittal)
- Acevedo v. State, 218 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 2017) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975) (sufficiency of evidence requires substantial competent evidence)
- Ware v. State, 124 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (lewd exposure offenses akin to visual assault)
- McGhee v. Volusia County, 679 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1996) (related statutes should be construed together)
- Conn. Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) (presumption that legislature says what it means)
- Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014) (courts apply statute as enacted, not legislative intent)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (plain statutory language is typically conclusive)