After Acquittal of Sexual Contact Crime, Court Cannot Require Sex Offender Therapy

A defendant acquitted of a sexual contact crime and convicted of a lesser battery charge cannot be required to participate in Sex Offender Therapy

Villanueva v. State, 2016 BL 217937, Fla., No. SC13-1828, 7/7/16.

   After having a sexual charge acquitted during trial, a defendant convicted on a lesser battery charge cannot be required to participate in sex offender therapy, says the Florida Supreme Court. Under Florida statute, therapy is allowed as a condition of probation only under a specific list of crimes. This list, however, did not include battery, which the court ruled prevented the trial court from imposing this condition during the defendant’s supervised release.

   The Florida Supreme Court did note that there is an exception that gives trial courts the discretion to impose sex offender therapy, even when there was no sexual crime, but only to prevent future criminal acts, which the court did not foresee as a possibility in this case. In justifying this decision, the court stated, “There is no record evidence that [the defendant] had any prior convictions. Thus, there is no indication that he has a propensity to commit any particular crime, including child molestation or sexual battery. As such, requiring [him] to attend [therapy] cannot reasonably be considered a major deterrent to any future criminality.”

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Villanueva_v_State_No_SC131828_2016_BL_217937_Fla_July_07_2016_Co.

Timothy Wayne Dodds v. The State of Texas, 2014 WL 6676774

Threatened by an act, the officer can defend himself. If a jury agrees that it was a threat.

Timothy Wayne Dodds v. The State of Texas, 2014 WL 6676774

A domestic violence case of an ex-husband, and his new wife, coming to harm the ex-wife and her new boyfriend and take the children. Police were tipped off and the officer arrived at the scene before the ex-husband. When the Appellant arrived at the same time as another party, Campbell, a friend called by the mother, arrived to take the children to safety.  Campbell made a remark that caused the appellant to “tense up.” After tensing up, the appellant walked toward Campbell with clenched fists appearing “ready to fight.” Seeing this, the officer pointed his Taser at the appellant yelling, “Stop, Police, Taser. Stop, Police, Taser.”

           

         Sergeant Garcia said, “He stopped. He looked at me, he grinned, took another step towards Campbell and I yelled a third time, ‘Stop, Police, Taser.’” As the appellant advanced, Sergeant Garcia pulled the Taser trigger, the Taser projectiles “went through the appellant’s shirt” but “did not make contact” with his body. At that point the appellant “stopped, looked down at [the projectiles], looked at [Sergeant Garcia] , looked at Campbell, took a step” towards Campbell. Then the appellant turned and walked towards Sergeant Garcia with fists clenched and grinning. Sergeant Garcia considered this advance a threat, he still had his fists clenched and was grinning. At this point the appellant “stopped, looked, grinned and reached down,” then grabbing the Taser wires, closing the Taser’s circuit “and the Taser took effect on him.” The appellant was then safely taken into custody.

            

          The appeal is based on the argument that the defendant did not vocalize a threat or physically assault the officer. The appellate court agreed with the jury in the district court saying “a rational jury could find that grinning and walking ‘with purpose’ and clenched fists toward [the officer] was a threat by unlawful act.’

http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/thirteenth-court-of-appeals/2014/13-13-00288-cr.html