Jackson v. State — affirmed the criminal judgment under precedent on sexual contact and six-person juries

Case
Kizuri Dequan Jackson v. State of Florida
Court
Florida First District Court of Appeal
Judge
Osterhaus, C.J.; Kelsey, J.; Winokur, J.
Date Decided
October 28, 2026
Docket No.
1D2025-0859
Topics
Criminal Appeals, Lewd or Lascivious Battery, Six-Person Juries
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Kizuri Dequan Jackson appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Escambia County, where Circuit Judge Amy Brodersen presided. The First District’s brief per curiam opinion does not describe the underlying conduct, charges, sentence, or Jackson’s specific arguments on appeal.

The authorities cited in the affirmance address two legal points: that lewd or lascivious battery may be proved through sexual union or contact with another person’s sexual organ, and that trying and convicting a defendant before a six-person jury on noncapital charges does not constitute fundamental error.

The Court’s Holding

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s judgment without a written factual or legal analysis. The panel relied on Nixon v. State, 342 So. 3d 691, 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), for the proposition that lewd or lascivious battery can be established through sexual union or contact with another person’s sexual organ.

The court also cited Jack v. State, 349 So. 3d 925, 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), which held that no fundamental error occurs when a defendant is tried and convicted by a six-person jury on noncapital charges. The opinion provides no further explanation of how those precedents applied to Jackson’s claims.

Key Takeaways

  • The First District affirmed Jackson’s criminal judgment in a per curiam opinion.
  • Lewd or lascivious battery may be proved by sexual union or contact with another person’s sexual organ.
  • Use of a six-person jury for noncapital charges does not amount to fundamental error under the cited First District precedent.

Why It Matters

The decision applies existing First District precedent rather than announcing a new rule. It reinforces the court’s prior interpretations concerning the contact element of lewd or lascivious battery and the absence of fundamental error when noncapital charges are tried to a six-person jury.

Because the opinion contains no factual discussion or independent reasoning, its practical significance lies mainly in confirming that the cited precedents continue to control those issues in the First District.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top