Caulder v. State, 85-1623
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 86,500 So.2d 1362 |
| Decision Date | 24 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1623,85-1623 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 86 Jeffrey Scott CAULDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
We grant the State's motion for rehearing, withdraw the previous opinion filed in this case, and substitute the opinion which follows.
Caulder appeals a final judgment convicting him of the crime of sexual battery on a child under eleven years of age by a person 18 years of age or older, 1 for which he was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years, and also convicting him of the crime of committing a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child, 2 for which he was sentenced to a concurrent term of fifteen years' imprisonment.
Caulder was charged by indictment in Seminole County with: Count I, sexual battery upon a child eleven years of age or younger; Count II, attempted sexual battery on a child eleven years of age or younger; and, Count III, committing a lewd and lascivious act or assault upon a child. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty as charged on Counts I and III, and was acquitted on Count II. He contends that on the sexual battery charge (Count I), the trial court erred when it sustained the State's objection and refused to give the defendant's requested jury instruction on the necessarily lesser included offense of simple battery. Appellant also contends that the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years on the sexual battery conviction violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article I, § 17 of the Florida Constitution.
With respect to the requested jury instruction, appellant relies exclusively on the schedule of lesser included offenses in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases at page 262. The schedule lists "battery" as the only Category I lesser offense to sexual battery under section 794.011(2). The failure to instruct on a necessarily included offense one step removed from the offense charged is reversible error per se, without regard to the harmless error doctrine, because it deprives the jury of the opportunity to exercise its inherent pardon power by returning a guilty verdict as to the next lower crime. State v. Bruns, 429 So.2d 307 (Fla.1983); State v. Abreau, 363 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1978). Thus, two questions are presented here; first, is simple battery a necessarily lesser offense of sexual battery upon a child eleven years of age or younger; and, 2) if it is, is it the next lower crime for which the defendant could have been convicted here.
The State argues that the schedule of lesser included offenses is incorrect when it lists battery as a necessarily included offense of sexual battery upon a child eleven years or under. The State advances several arguments in support of this proposition, but only one merits discussion. A necessarily included offense is one whose constituent elements are included within the elements of the greater offense. State v. Baker, 452 So.2d 927 (Fla.1984); Bell v. State, 437 So.2d 1057 (Fla.1983); Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla.1982). Put another way, all the statutory elements of a necessarily lesser offense are proved in proving the greater offense. Benjamin v. State, 462 So.2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Cannon v. State, 456 So.2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Foster v. State, 448 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Recognizing this definition, the State nevertheless argues that simple battery cannot be a necessarily included offense of sexual battery on a child under the age of eleven because one of the constituent elements of the crime of simple battery is an unconsented touching, whereas this particular sexual battery does not require either an allegation or proof of the nonconsent of the victim. Thus, says the State, proof of sexual battery under section 794.011(2), does not necessarily include proof of a battery because the element of nonconsent is missing.
What the State overlooks is the historic principle that children of tender years have always been considered as legally incapable of giving consent to sexual abuse, so that their lack of consent is presumed by law, 3 and thus need not be specifically alleged or proved.
In Schang v. State, 43 Fla. 561, 31 So. 346 (1901) the defendant was indicted for rape of a child under ten years of age, but was convicted of an assault with intent to commit rape. He appealed the conviction, arguing that the crime of assault with intent to commit rape was not included within the crime of rape with which he was charged. In affirming the conviction, the court held:
Under the provisions of [the statute], the unlawful carnal knowledge and abuse of a female child under the age of 10 years is made a felony punishable with death or imprisonment for life, whether such child formally consents thereto or not; and section 2403, last above quoted, makes an assault upon such child with the intent carnally to know and abuse her punishable as a felony. It would seem to be a contradiction in terms, when these two statutes are considered together, to say that the principal crime may be completely consummated and punished, regardless of the consent of the child, and that yet, in trying an assault with the intent to commit it, the consent or nonconsent of the child would be material. In such cases the law presumes that a child of such immature age is incapable of either consenting to or protesting against the act, and this presumption of incapacity applies as well to every act of her assailant tending towards the commission of the crime as to the completed crime itself.
31 So. at 347. See also McKinney v. State, 29 Fla. 565, 10 So. 732 (1892).
Other authorities have reached similar conclusions. In Commonwealth v. Roosnell, 143 Mass. 32, 8 N.E. 747 (1886), the defendant argued that the offense of assault upon a female child under 10 years of age with intent to carnally know and abuse her could not be maintained in the absence of allegation and proof that the acts were done without the consent of the victim. Recognizing that consent would not be a defense to a charge of raping the child, the defendant nevertheless insisted that consent was a defense to a charge of assault because the rape statute did not extend to assault, and consent was always a good defense to a charge of assault. In rejecting this defense, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts noted:
Where a rape upon a child under the age of 10 years is charged, by carnally knowing and abusing her, it is not necessary to aver or prove that the acts were done against her will or without her consent. The reason is that, from her tender years, she is held in law to be incapable of giving a valid consent to such acts, and the law conclusively presumes that she did not consent. 3 Greenl.Ev. § 211. The rule has always been so from the earliest times, though the reason has not always been stated in this form.
* * *
* * *
If, as all agree, it is immaterial upon a charge of committing the completed act, which includes an assault, no reason, but an extremely technical one, can be urged why it should not be so upon a charge of assault with intent to commit the completed act. Indeed, to speak of an assault upon her without her consent, with intent to carnally know and abuse her with her consent, seems to involve a contradiction in terms. But when it is once considered that the intention of the law is to declare that a young girl shall be deemed incapable of consenting to such an act to her injury, and that evidence of any consent by her shall be incompetent in defense to an indictment therefor, and that although she gives a formal and apparent consent, yet in law, as in reality, she gives none, because she does not and cannot take in the meaning of what is done, all legal difficulty disappears, and the conclusion may properly be reached that the assault is without her consent, and against her will. [Emphasis added].
Roosnell, 8 N.E. at 751, 752. See also Murphy v. State, 120 Ind. 115, 22 N.E. 106 (1889).
So it is that in the charge of sexual battery upon a child of eleven years or younger lack of consent is an element of the crime although it need not be alleged or proved, because it is conclusively presumed by law. Because a child of that age is conclusively presumed to be legally incapable of giving consent to a sexual battery, her lack of consent is always present as an element of the crime. 4 Thus, a charge of the greater crime of sexual battery on a child of eleven or younger always includes a charge of simple battery, because the constituent elements of the sexual battery charge include the constituent elements of simple battery, to-wit: an unconsented touching. The schedule of necessarily lesser included offenses thus correctly lists simple battery as a necessarily lesser included offense of sexual battery under section 794.011(2), and the jury should have been so instructed.
Our holding that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser included crime of simple battery is not dispositive, however, of the question of whether that error is reversible. Although the trial court rejected the requested charge on simple battery, it granted defendant's request that the jury be instructed on lewd assault, a second degree felony under section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1983), as a lesser offense of the sexual battery charge. If lewd assault is a necessarily lesser included offense of sexual battery on a child eleven years or younger,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nurse v. State
...jury instruction because an attempt to commit the charged offense is, in fact, a lesser included offense. Weller; see Caulder v. State, 500 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 297 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1068, 108 S.Ct. 1033, 98 L.Ed.2d 997 (1988); Budd v. Stat......
-
Hoover v. State
...evidenced by his argument to the jury or took other affirmative action. Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956, 961 (Fla.1981); Caulder v. State, 500 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (on rehearing ); Cherry v. State, 389 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), review denied, 410 So.2d 1337 Since in my judgment ......
-
State v. Davis
... ... See Mosley v. State, 500 So.2d 108 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). In Caulder v. State, 500 So.2d 1362 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987), life imprisonment without possibility of parole for twenty-five years was imposed for an apparent ... ...
-
Riley v. State
...age cannot consent, and thus the offense always includes simple battery as a necessarily included offense); see also Caulder v. State, 500 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (simple battery is a necessarily lesser included offense of capital sexual battery). Because simple battery was a necessa......