State of Florida v. Ronnie J. Knighton, 235 So. 3d 312

Ronnie Knighton, an adult, was charged under Fla. Stat. § 800.04(4) with lewd or lascivious battery based on alleged penile‑vaginal union/penetration of a victim aged 12–15.
At the charge conference Knighton requested a jury instruction on the permissive lesser included offense of "unnatural and lascivious act" under Fla. Stat. § 800.02; the State objected and the trial court denied the request.
Knighton was convicted of lewd or lascivious battery; the Fourth District reversed, holding penile‑vaginal intercourse with a child can be an "unnatural and lascivious act" and thus a permissive lesser included offense.
The State sought and obtained review in the Florida Supreme Court, asserting the Fourth District's decision conflicted with the Second District's decision in Harris v. State.
The Supreme Court considered statutory construction of sections 800.02 and 800.04(4) and the governing rules for permissive lesser included offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Knighton)	Held
Whether penile‑vaginal intercourse alleged in the information can nevertheless support an instruction on the permissive lesser included offense of "unnatural and lascivious act."	The statutes are distinct; "unnatural" excludes ordinary penile‑vaginal intercourse, so when the information alleges penile‑vaginal union the lesser instruction is not available.	Even if charged as penile‑vaginal intercourse, the evidence could support an "unnatural" act (e.g., sensual intent), so a permissive lesser instruction should be given.	Reversed the Fourth District; penile‑vaginal intercourse alleged in the information does not entitle the defendant to the §800.02 instruction as a permissive lesser included offense.
Proper test for giving a permissive lesser included instruction.	The information must allege all elements of the lesser and the trial evidence must support it.	Agreed on the legal test but urged application to permit the §800.02 instruction here.	Affirmed established two‑part test (pleading + some evidence) but found §800.02 is separate and not triggered by a charging allegation of penile‑vaginal union.

Harris v. State, 742 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (held that an information alleging penile‑vaginal union precludes instruction on §800.02)
Funiciello v. State, 179 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (held digital penetration and intercourse with a child can be "unnatural and lascivious")
Khianthalat v. State, 974 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2008) (articulates de novo review and permissive lesser included instruction requirements)
Sanders v. State, 944 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2006) (discusses necessary vs. permissive lesser included offenses and definitions)
Wong v. State, 212 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 2017) (confirms §800.02 is a permissive lesser included offense in non‑penile‑vaginal intercourse cases)