Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1981

Handwerk v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided October 13, 1981 · Ferguson, Genson, Jor, Nesbitt

404 So. 2d 828; 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 27950 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Ochoa (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Fridovich v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on the grounds that the testimony of the expert witness — a medical doctor qualified as an expert in matters of involuntary sexual battery — that there was injury to the child’s anal cavity and that the injury was inconsistent with accident or self-infliction, but was consistent with an intentional penetration by another person sufficiently established the corpus delicti as a predicate for admitting defendant’s confession, see e.g., Vaillancourt v. State, 288 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1974); Holland v. State, 359 So.2d 28 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 1979); Eierle v. State, 358 So.2d 1160 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 884 (Fla. 1978). The time period stated within the indictment as the date of offense is not a necessary element to establishing the corpus delicti.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.