GARY G. DEBAUN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
No. SC13-2336
Supreme Court of Florida
[March 16, 2017]
CANADY, J.
In this case we consider whether the term “sexual intercourse” as used in the context of a statutory scheme enacted to prevent the spread of sexually transmissible diseases encompasses conduct beyond penile-vaginal intercourse. We have for review State v. Debaun, 129 So. 3d 1089, 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), in which the Third District Court of Appeal held that the term “sexual intercourse” as used in
I. BACKGROUND
In 2011, Gary G. Debaun was charged with violating
It is unlawful for any person who has human immunodeficiency virus infection, when such person knows he or she is infected with this disease and when such person has been informed that he or she may communicate this disease to another person through sexual intercourse, to have sexual intercoursе with any other person, unless such other person has been informed of the presence of the
sexually transmissible disease and has consented to the sexual intercourse.
The charge arose from a homosexual relationship between Debaun and the victim, C.M. Debaun, 129 So. 3d at 1090. Before engaging in sexual activity with Debaun, C.M. requested that Debaun provide him with a laboratory report confirming that Debaun was not infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Id. Debaun obliged and provided C.M. with a lab report indicating that he was HIV negative. Id. But after engaging in oral and anal intercourse with Debaun, C.M. learned that Debaun had forged his doctor‘s signature on the lab report and was in fact HIV positive. Id. C.M. reported the crime and assisted law enforcement in obtaining admissions from Debaun during a controlled phоne call. Debaun was subsequently charged with violating
Debaun moved to dismiss the charge under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), arguing that the term “sexual intercourse,” which is not defined in chapter 384, applies only to penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ. Id. at 1091. The trial court granted Debaun‘s motion to dismiss based on the decision of the Second District in L.A.P., 62 So. 3d at 694-95, which held that the term “sexual intercourse” in
On appeal, the Third District rejected the holding of L.A.P. and concluded that the “meaning of the term ‘sexual intercourse’ as used in section 384.24(2) includes more than an act where a male‘s penis is placed inside a female‘s vagina, and encompasses the oral and anal sexual activity” in which Debaun engaged with the victim. Id. at 1095. The court reversed the order dismissing the charge against Debaun and certified conflict with L.A.P. Id.
In reaching its conclusion that
The Third District found support for its conclusion within the legislative history of chapter 384. Prior to the enactment of thе Control of Sexually Transmissible Disease Act in 1986, chapter 384 was known as the Venereal Diseases Act. Id. at 1093. Under the Venereal Diseases Act, it was “unlawful for any female afflicted with any venereal disease, knowing of such condition, to have sexual intercourse with any male person, or for any male person afflicted with
In L.A.P., which was decided two years before Debaun, the Second District concluded “that sexual intercourse is an unambiguous phrase which must be given its plain meaning in the absence of a definition in chapter 384.” 62 So. 3d at 694. In order to ascertain the plain meaning of the term, the court relied on the definition of “sexual intercourse” provided in
During the pendency of Debaun‘s appeal, the Fifth District also considered the scope of the term “sexual intercourse” in
On appeal, the Fifth District sought to “determine the plain and obvious meaning of [the] statute‘s text by referring to dictionaries.” Id. at 442. After reciting a number of definitions from various dictionaries, the court noted that none of the definitions uncovered by the court or cited by D.C. limited “sexual intercourse” to “heterosexual vaginal intercourse.” Id. The Fifth District therefore concluded that “the plain and ordinary meaning of the term sexual intercourse, as used in section 384.24(2), includes vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse between persons, regardless of their gender.” Id. The court stаted that limiting the meaning of “sexual intercourse” in the statute to penile-vaginal intercourse “would lead to ‘a result clearly contrary to legislative intent.‘” Id. (quoting State v. Burris, 875 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 2004)). In reversing the trial court‘s order dismissing the information, the Fifth District also certified
II. ANALYSIS
In the analysis that follows, we first consider the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “sexual intercourse” and conclude that it is not limited to only penile-vaginal intercourse. We then conclude that the plain and ordinary meaning of “sexual intercourse” controls in
The narrow issue before the Cоurt is whether the term “sexual intercourse” as used in
With regard to questions of statutory interpretation, we have stated:
Our purpоse in construing a statute is to give effect to the Legislature‘s intent. When a statute is clear, courts will not look behind the statute‘s plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent. Instead, the statute‘s plain and ordinary meaning must control, unless this leads to an unreasonable result or a result clearly contrary to legislative intent.
Paul v. State, 129 So. 3d 1058, 1064 (Fla. 2013) (quoting Burris, 875 So. 2d at 410). “Where, as hеre, the [L]egislature has not defined the words used in a [statute], the language should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty. v. Survivors Charter Sch., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1220, 1233 (Fla. 2009) (second alteration in original) (quoting Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass‘n v. Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearings, 686 So. 2d 1349, 1354 (Fla. 1997)). “When considering the [plain] meaning of terms used in a statute, this Court looks first to the terms’ ordinary definitions[, which] . . . may be derived from dictionaries.” Dudley v. State, 139 So. 3d 273, 279 (Fla. 2014) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Trinidad v. Fla. Peninsula Ins. Co., 121 So. 3d 433, 439 (Fla. 2013)); see also E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614, 632 (Fla. 2009); Barco v. Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cnty., 975 So. 2d 1116, 1122 (Fla. 2008). Because the Legislature did not define “sexual interсourse” in chapter 384, we look to the dictionary in order to ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary defines “sexual intercourse” as both “heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis” and “intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis.” Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 2082 (1993). The American Heritage Dictionary defines “sexual intercourse” as “[s]exual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina” and “[s]exual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1606 (5th ed. 2011).
Chapter 384 is known as the “Control of Sexually Transmissible Disease Act.”
The Legislature finds and declares that sexually transmissible diseases constitute a serious and sometimes fatal threat to the public and individual health and welfare of the people of the state and to visitors to the state. The Legislature finds that the incidence of sexually transmissible diseases is rising at an alarming rate and that these diseases result in significant social, health, and economic costs, including infant and maternal mortality, temporary and lifelong disability, and premature death. The Legislature finds that sexually transmissible diseases, by their nature, involve sensitive issues of privacy, and it is the intent of the Legislature that all programs designed to deal with these diseases afford patients privacy, confidentiality, and dignity. The Legislature finds that medical knowledge and information about sexually transmissible diseases are rapidly changing. The Legislature intends to provide a program that is sufficiently flexible to meet emerging needs, deals efficiently and effectively with reducing the incidence of sexually transmissible diseases, and provides patients with a secure knowledge that information they provide will remain private and confidential.
According to the CDC, HIV can be spread through vaginal, anal, and oral sex, but anal sex presents the greatest risk of transmitting the infection. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV Transmission, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/transmission.html (last visited March 1, 2017). Further, although gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men represent only about 2% of the United States population, they are the population most severely affected by HIV. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fact Sheet: HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men (Sept. 2016), http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/group/msm/cdc-hiv-msm.pdf. In 2014, gay and bisеxual men accounted for the majority (67%) of new HIV infections, as well as the majority of all people (55%) living with HIV in the United States as of 2013. Id.
When the plain meaning of the term “sexual intercourse“—which includes oral and anal intercourse between two men—is applied to
Lastly, we explain why although “[i]n the absence оf a statutory definition, it is permissible to look to case law or related statutory provisions that define the term,” L.A.P., 62 So. 3d at 694 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Brake, 796 So. 2d 522, 528 (Fla. 2001)), the definitions of “sexual intercourse” provided in the incest statute and referenced in the cases cited by the Second District in L.A.P. are not applicable to
First, when a court looks to other statutory provisions to define a term that lacks its own statutory definition, the provision to which a court looks must be rеlated to the provision lacking a definition. “[T]he incest statute addresses ‘the violation of generally accepted societal standards involving marriage and sexual intercourse between persons related within the specified degrees. Society‘s interests in prohibiting incest include the prevention of pregnancies which may involve a high risk of abnormal or defective оffspring.‘” Beam v. State, 1 So. 3d 331, 334 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (quoting Slaughter v. State, 538 So. 2d 509, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)); see also Carnes v. State, 725 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“The obvious purpose of the incest statute is to address the evil of sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within specific degrees.“).
Second, applicatiоn of the definition of “sexual intercourse” provided in the incest statute (“penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ“) to
Because the incest statute is directed at the prevention of certain pregnancies there is no reason for the term “sexual intercourse” as used in that statute to encompass any act beyond penile-vaginal intercourse. But as used in a statutе directed at curtailing the spread of HIV—which can be communicated through vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse, and is in fact most likely to be spread through anal intercourse—it would be absurd for the term “sexual intercourse” to apply only to the act of heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse. If the Legislature intended to exclude from
In addition to the incest statute, the Second District in L.A.P. relied on four cases in support of its conclusion that the definition of “sexual intercourse” provided in the incest statute limits the use of the term in
Finally, we reject the suggestion that the rule of lenity in
III. CONCLUSION
The term “sexual intercourse” in
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
LAWSON, J., did not participate.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions
Third District - Case No. 3D11-3094
(Monroe County)
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Brian Leе Ellison, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida,
for Petitioner
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida; Richard L. Polin, Bureau Chief, and Joanne Diez and Jeffrey R. Geldens, Assistant Attorneys General, Miami, Florida,
for Respondent