## Facts

- Linteen Edward Wilson and Bernard Brinson were inmates at a Florida prison.
- Along with other inmates, they assaulted a fellow inmate, threatened him with a knife, and forced anal sexual intercourse.
- The State charged them with sodomy under Fla. Stat. § 800.01 (1971) (the “crime against nature” statute).
- A jury convicted both defendants; the trial court imposed prison sentences.
- While the appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court held § 800.01 void for vagueness.
- The District Court of Appeal reversed the sodomy convictions but remanded for further proceedings under Fla. Stat. § 794.01 (1971), Florida’s rape statute.
- Section 794.01, by its terms, criminalized forcible carnal knowledge of a “female” and unlawful carnal knowledge of a “female child.”

## Issues

1. Whether Fla. Stat. § 794.01 (1971), expressly limited to female victims, could be construed to cover forcible anal intercourse against a male victim.
2. Whether applying § 794.01 to conduct not within the statute’s terms at the time would violate due process and operate as an ex post facto expansion of criminal liability.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court reversed the District Court of Appeal insofar as it authorized prosecution under § 794.01.
- The court held § 794.01 could not be judicially expanded from “female” victims to “person” or male victims.
- The cause was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion, foreclosing use of § 794.01 for the male-victim conduct at issue.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal statutes are construed according to their text; courts may not rewrite clear statutory limitations to reach conduct not covered.
- Separation of powers limits judicial authority to expand criminal liability; changing a statute’s scope is for the legislature.
- Due process bars retroactive judicial enlargement of a criminal statute to punish conduct not criminalized by the statute’s terms when committed, an effect comparable to an ex post facto law.

## Conclusion

The court refused to permit reprosecution under Florida’s rape statute because its plain language protected only female victims, and expanding it to cover male victims would amount to judicial lawmaking and an impermissible retroactive enlargement of criminal liability.


Wilson v. State, 288 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1974)