State v. Marcel
67 So. 3d 1223
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Marcel pled nolo contendere to unlawful touching of a person aged fourteen, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 800.04(6)(c).
- Marcel was eighteen; the victim was fourteen; the trial court withheld adjudication and imposed three years of probation.
- As a plea consequence, Marcel was automatically designated a sexual offender with lifetime registration under § 943.0435, Fla. Stat. (2001).
- Seven years later, Florida enacted § 943.04354 to create a Romeo and Juliet relief for certain consensual conduct by youths.
- One criterion: not more than four years older than a victim aged fourteen or older but under eighteen at the time of the offense; Marcel satisfied the other conditions but not the age-difference limit.
- The trial court granted relief; the State appealed, arguing Marcel failed the age-difference condition and relief was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the age-difference requirement is met under 943.04354(l)(c). | Marcel argues the calculation should follow the birthday rule (completed years only). | State contends the statute requires precise time-based difference; any excess beyond four years disqualifies. | Marcel does not satisfy the four-year limit; the precise difference is 4 years, 3 months, 8 days, exceeding four years. |
| Whether the rule of lenity applies to resolve statutory ambiguity. | Marcel relies on lenity to interpret a potentially ambiguous provision. | State asserts no ambiguity exists in the statute's plain language. | No ambiguity; lenity does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moore, 167 N.C. App. 495 (2004) (distinguishes between calculating age and time for statutory purposes)
- State v. Yarger, 181 Ohio App.3d 132 (2009) (birth dates govern age-difference determinations under some statutes)
- People v. Anderson, 108 Ill. App.3d 563 (1982) (age-difference considerations tied to statutory adult status)
- State v. Faulk, 200 N.C. App. 118 (2009) (birthday-rule vs precise-time calculation for similar age-difference limits)
- State v. Jason B., 248 Conn. 543 (1998) (birth-date comparison used to determine relative ages in juvenile offenses)
- United States v. Brown, 206 U.S. 240 (1907) (plain meaning governs statutory interpretation; no lenity when unambiguous)
- Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103 (1990) (lenity requires statutory ambiguity)