to.” S left the motel on the following morning, leaving the defendant a note in which “she told him she liked him.” The charges against the defendant were filed on the following day. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere, specifically reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. At the outset, the defendant makes clear that he does not attempt to defend his conduct; indeed, he freely acknowledges that it is reprehensible. What he does defend is his right to be charged under a statute which embraces such conduct. Thus, while he suggests that he may have been prosecuted for lewd cohabitation, § 798.02, Fla.Stat. (1981); prostitution, § 796.07, Fla.Stat. (1981); see Tatzel v. State, 356 So.2d 787 (Fla.1978) (<HOLDING>); or contributing to the delinquency of a
holding unconstitutional the texas statute criminalizing deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex holding that evidence was insufficient where the victim testified that she was awake and communicated her desire not to have sexual intercourse with the defendant holding that the trial court did not err by excluding the victims earlier reports of sexual abuse because too many sexual details remain unaccounted for after consideration of what defendant hoped to prove with the prior sexual conduct holding constitutional the defining of licentious sexual intercourse without consideration as prostitution under section 79607 holding that an effort of the defendant by words of persuasion alone to induce the plaintiff to grant him the favor of sexual intercourse was not an assault