Alexander v. State
The Fourth District held that using the 2022 amended statutory definitions of 'female genitals' (rather than the 2020 version's undefined 'vagina') in jury instructions for sexual battery and unlawful sexual activity with a minor was error, but applied a totality-of-the-circumstances fundamental error analysis to reach different results on different counts. The court affirmed the sexual battery conviction (Count III) because the victim's testimony and evidence specifically established vaginal contact, but reversed the unlawful sexual activity conviction (Count IV) because the verdict's internal inconsistencies suggested the jury may have relied on the broader, erroneous definition to find guilt based on non-vaginal genital contact. Judge Forst dissented as to Count IV, arguing the seemingly inconsistent verdicts could be reconciled without invoking the erroneous instruction.
Key facts
- Alexander was charged with sexual battery (Count III) and unlawful sexual activity with a minor (Count IV) under statutes predating the 2022 amendment defining 'female genitals.'
- The trial court instructed the jury using the 2022 amended definition of 'female genitals' rather than the 2020 version's undefined term 'vagina,' potentially broadening the State's theory of the case.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion refines the fundamental-error framework first articulated in Flores v. State for cases where trial courts erroneously apply 2022 amended sexual battery/unlawful sexual activity definitions to pre-amendment… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.