Skip to main content

Saavedra v. State

Citations

  • 576 So. 2d 953
  • 1990 WL 175055

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding the crucial question in determining whether distinct acts occurred is typically whether defendant had time to reflect and form a new criminal intent between the acts
  • concluding, where defendant sexually assaulted victim near her home and in two different locations in a nearby park, that moving victim to distinguishable locations gave defendant time to pause and reflect between acts
  • rejecting double jeopardy argument pertaining to a 1987 offense, where each assault occurred at different time and location, and the defendant had time to pause and reflect before each one
  • “[jjoint dominion or control provides valid consent [by one person] only when the other person is absent”
  • “Sexual bat tery of a separate character and type requiring different elements of proof warrant multiple punishments.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Miner

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

49 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.