Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-722,93-722 |
| Citation | 632 So.2d 1062 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D249 John Arthur JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
The defendant below, John Arthur Johnson, was convicted of two counts of sexual battery and one of robbery. The second count of sexual battery was based on digital penetration of the victim's anus. The victim gave rather equivocal testimony that Johnson "briefly" penetrated her anus with his finger, but, because of her movement, "wasn't very successful ... at actual penetration." Johnson, testifying in his own behalf, denied any anal penetration, saying that he "only felt her butt."
The problem lies in the fact that the trial judge instructed the jury in respect to this charge that "union is an alternative to penetration and means coming into contact." The appellant argues, and the state agrees, that "union is not applicable to a charge based on digital penetration," and that the touching of finger to anus is not sexual battery. See Wallis v. State, 548 So.2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
The state, although acknowledging the erroneous instruction, points out that there was no contemporaneous objection to the instruction at trial and maintains that it did not constitute fundamental error. We cannot agree with the state's argument. The absence of objection does not waive misstatement of a disputed element of the offense charged. State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla.1991); State v. Jones, 377 So.2d 1163 (Fla.1979); Crump v. State, 629 So.2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Given the erroneous instruction to the jury, it necessarily should have convicted Johnson of the second count of sexual battery even if it had believed his version of the incident.
We do agree with the state that there is no merit in the appellant's contention that he was entitled to a mistrial because of prejudicial testimony by a police officer at trial. Accordingly, we affirm Johnson's convictions for sexual battery under Count I (penile penetration) and for robbery under Count III. We reverse his conviction for sexual battery under Count II (digital penetration) and remand for a new trial on that count.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State, 5D00-3801.
...issue in the case. Duncan v. State, 703 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 718 So.2d 167 (Fla.1998); Johnson v. State, 632 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Delva.1 Once the error is deemed fundamental, it may be reviewed on appeal. In order to determine whether fundamental error wa......
-
Saidi v. State
...to the elements of the criminal offense'") (quoting Ward v. State, 655 So.2d 1290, 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)); see also Johnson v. State, 632 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). While we agree with that general statement of the law, it has no application Section 836.10, Florida Statutes is viola......
-
Neal v. State
...So.2d 643 (Fla.1991); Brumbley v. State, 453 So.2d 381 (Fla.1984); Jones v. State, 656 So.2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 632 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994))). We agree with Neal's assertion that this phrase is a necessary element of the Accordingly, because the instruction in......
-
Watkins v. State
...of union with an object in the absence of penetration." Gill v. State, 586 So.2d 471, 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). See Johnson v. State, 632 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (reversing conviction for digital penetration of the victim's anus, because the court erroneously instructed the jury that ......