Perry v. Stat

155 So.3d 390 (2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D met Young in 1994, and the two formed a close friendship, spending their days off together, and attending each other's family events. Young was very close to the family and drove Mary Perry to the hospital when she gave birth to E.P. Mary Perry described Young as almost a godfather to her children and as a brother to D. D himself described Young as his brother, and allowed his daughter E.P. to call Young 'Uncle Robert.' But the relationship between D and Young was far more intimate than that of brothers. D, Mary Perry, and Young participated in threesomes. And unbeknownst to D, Mary Perry and Young had a long-term affair apart from the threesomes. The Perry family was living with Mary Perry's mother. Young moved into the Perry home. Neither D nor Mary Perry were working. Young paid all of their bills and provided transportation for the family. The Perry family was financially dependent on Young. Young eventually moved into E.P.'s bedroom and slept in the same bed as the eight-year-old little girl. Despite the fact that D and Mary Perry knew that Young was a convicted sex offender, neither objected to Young sleeping with E.P. Neither did they object to Young bathing their young daughter, even though E.P. was old enough to bathe herself and was capable of doing so. DCF received an alert and D, and Mary Perry denied that Young was sleeping in E.P.'s bedroom and further denied that any of their children were left alone with Young. D and Mary signed a safety plan, affirmatively agreeing that none of the children would have unsupervised contact with Young. D and Mary Perry continued to allow Young, a known sex offender, to sleep with their eight-year-old daughter. DCF got a second alert. E.P. admitted that Young was sleeping in her bed and that her parents were aware of the sleeping arrangement. The investigator and a detective observed a lock on the outside of E.P.'s door. E.P. would later tell investigators that her parents locked the door to her bedroom to keep her inside the room with Young. E.P. admitted that Young had penetrated her vaginally and anally with his penis, that he forced her to perform oral sex on him, and that he performed oral sex on her. D denied that Young slept with E.P. and denied that Young had any unsupervised contact with E.P. D was aware that Young was a convicted sex offender but asserted that he did not believe that Young would do anything to hurt E.P. Mary Perry admitted that they never attempted to follow the safety plan and that she witnessed Young sexually abusing E.P. and had told D what she had seen, and that neither of them took any action to prevent the continuation of the abuse. She and D concealed Young's actions from the Department during the investigation. D continued to assert that Young never abused his daughter. D denied knowledge of Young's prior sex offense even though there was a recording of him admitting it to DCF. D moved for judgment of acquittal on the charge of conspiracy to commit sexual battery, arguing that there was no evidence that he had conspired with Mary Perry or Patricia Woloszynowski for the crime of capital sexual battery to be committed. D was convicted and appealed.