62 So. 3d 693
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- L.A.P. challenged a judgment for violating section 384.24(2), Florida Statutes (2008), which criminalizes HIV-positive individuals having sexual intercourse without informing the partner.
- She engaged in oral sex and digital penetration of the vagina without informing her partner of her HIV status.
- The trial court denied a dispositive motion to dismiss; L.A.P. pleaded and reserved the right to appeal the denial.
- The central issue is whether the statute applies to acts lacking sexual intercourse when the defendant is HIV-positive and fails to disclose status.
- The Florida Second District Court of Appeal conducted de novo statutory interpretation and concluded the statute requires sexual intercourse.
- The court reversed L.A.P.’s conviction and remanded with directions to discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 384.24(2) require sexual intercourse to prohibit conduct? | L.A.P. contends the statute, by its plain language, is limited to sexual intercourse and thus does not cover oral/digital acts. | State argues the statute broadly criminalizes risky sexual conduct by an HIV-positive person who fails to disclose status. | Statute requires sexual intercourse; L.A.P.’s acts do not fall within it. |
Key Cases Cited
- L.A.P. v. State, 62 So.3d 693 (Fla. 2011) (primary precedent interpreting 384.24(2) for this case)
- Green v. State, 765 So.2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (defined sexual intercourse for purposes of statutory interpretation)
- State v. Bowden, 18 So.2d 478 (Fla. 1944) (definition of sexual intercourse as penetration by the male organ)
- Williams v. State, 109 So. 305 (Fla. 1926) (sexual intercourse means actual contact and penetration)
- Lanier v. State, 464 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 1985) (overruled on other grounds; discussed definition of sexual intercourse)
- Lanier v. State, 443 So.2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (defined sexual intercourse as actual contact and penetration)
- State v. Brake, 796 So.2d 522 (Fla. 2001) (plain meaning governs unless absurd result)
- Maddox v. State, 923 So.2d 442 (Fla. 2006) (limits on extending statutory language beyond plain terms)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (avoid adding words altering plain statutory meaning)
- Velez v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Police Dep't, 934 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 2006) (presumption of legislative intent behind statutory terms)
- Overstreet v. State, 629 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1993) (statutory interpretation considerations in Florida)
- State v. Mitro, 700 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1997) (definition-related interpretation principles cited in analysis)