Crews v. State
| Decision Date | 15 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1D12-4703 |
| Parties | WILLIAM R. CREWS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
SENTERFITT, ELIZABETH, ASSOCIATE JUDGE.
William R. Crews appeals the denial of several motions to dismiss prior to the entry of his no contest plea to fourteen felonies. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Crews formerly worked as a teacher at Deane Bozeman School in Bay County, Florida. According to the amended information, while a teacher, Crews engaged in sexual activity with several students. He was charged with sexual activity with a child (two counts), lewd and lascivious molestation (three counts), lewd and lascivious exhibition (four counts), and showing obscene material to a minor (five counts). He moved to dismiss eight of the fourteen charges filed against him. After these motions were denied, Crews entered a no contest plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of these motions. Pursuant to an agreement, he was adjudicated guilty as to all counts and sentenced to twenty years.
On appeal, Crews argues the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss count six of the amended information. Count six of the amended information charged:
William R. Crews, between June 2004 and June 2006, in the County of Bay and State of Florida, did unlawfully engage in sexual activity with J.E., a child 12 years of age or older but less than 18 years of age, while William R. Crews was in a position of familial or custodial authority over J.E., in that William R. Crews did perform oral sex on J.E. by placing J.E.'s penis in his mouth, contrary to Florida Statute 794.011(8)(b). (1 DEG FEL).
(Bold added). Crews moved to dismiss this first degree felony on the ground that he did not have custodial or familial authority over the victim at the time the oralsex was committed. In support of dismissal, appellant cited Hallberg v. State, 649 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1994).
In his deposition, the victim of count six, J.E., described his encounters with Crews. While in the 7th grade, J.E. was asked to go to a car show with Crews. After the show, Crews invited J.E. to a storage unit where he stored a car and also kept a television and DVD player. According to J.E., Crews would play pornography on the DVD player; he had sex "toys" in the unit as well. This pattern was repeated and served as a prelude to Crews' sexual offenses. Eventually, Crews began driving J.E. to and from school, despite the fact that the child's grandparents, who were also his guardians, distrusted Crews. They did not give appellant any authority over J.E. The interaction between Crews and J.E. continued into the child's eighth grade year, when Crews was one of his teachers. Then, on one occasion in the summer between J.E.'s eighth and ninth grades, or early in the ninth grade year, Crews took J.E. to Crews' residence and an incident of oral sex occurred, as described in count six. The State admitted, in its traverse to the motion to dismiss count six, the following from Crews' motion to dismiss:
There is no argument by the State that Crews was in familial authority with J.E. As to the question of whether Crews was in custodial authority at the time of the sexual encounter alleged in count six, the defense below argued that no such custodial authority could be said to exist because the encounter occurred away from school grounds and was unconnected with a school activity. As the incident occurred in the summer or early in the ninth grade, Crews was not one of J.E.'s teachers at the time.
In Hallberg v. State, 649 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1994), the Florida Supreme Court held that "a teacher, without any teaching responsibility or extracurricular activity supervisory authority over a child during a summer recess, is not in a position of custodial authority" for the purposes of the statute which forbids sexual activity with a child by a person in familial or custodial authority. Thus, "teachers are not, by reason of their chosen profession, custodians of their students at all times,particularly when school is recessed for the summer." Id. at 1357. The activity between the victim and the defendant in Hallberg:
did not occur during the school year or on school premises. They did not occur in connection with the activities of a recognized extracurricular event such as band or drama club. Mr. Hallberg went to the home of S.S. in the middle of summer vacation. Although the parents of S.S. were generally aware that this man wanted S.S. to help him with a history project during the summer, these visits were not scheduled with her parents' knowledge or consent. He simply showed up at the front door with a textbook and talked his way inside the house when only S.S. was at home.
649 So. 2d at 1357 (). Further, "[i]t is clear S.S.'s parents did not place Hallberg in custodial control and authority over their daughter." Id. at 1357-58.
The trial court, in denying Crews' motion to dismiss count six, held that Hallberg is distinguishable because "the acts between the defendant [and J.E.] occurred during the school year (but off campus) when the defendant had teaching authority over [J.E. and others] as students in his class." (Bold added). The highlighted passage is contrary to the facts as admitted by the State in its traverse to the motion to dismiss. As noted above, the sexual activity between Crews and J.E. as alleged in count six occurred away from school, at a time when Crews was not the victim's classroom teacher, and was unconnected to a school activity.Given the admitted facts regarding the conduct at issue in...
To continue reading
Request your trial