# Shapiro v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · July 23, 1997 · 696 So. 2d 1321

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7708080

## Case

- **Full name:** Arnold SHAPIRO v. STATE of Florida
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** July 23, 1997
- **Citations:** 696 So. 2d 1321; 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8402
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Warner
- **Judges:** Shahood, Stone, Warner
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7708080

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that similar fact evidence regarding prior act of sexual misconduct by defendant was properly admitted to show the defendant's "common scheme, plan, or design to sexually exploit his patients," and that such evidence is relevant "even if it is not uniquely similar"
- finding that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for a psychologist's therapeutic deceptions to convince a current patient to engage in prohibitive sexual conduct with him
- affirming, in prosecution of psychologist for sexual misconduct, admission of testimony of Williams rule witness regarding her experience with appellant twenty years earlier because both she and victim in charged offense were separated from their husbands, neither sought sexua…
- finding no abuse of discretion in lower court's admission of prior-act testimony involving another individual from twenty years earlier

## Opinion text

WARNER, J.,
concurring specially.
I concur in the affirmance of the conviction and the majority’s resolution of the issues regarding the motion for judgment of acquittal and Williams rule evidence, and the constitutional arguments regarding the section of the statute under which appellant was charged and convicted. While I do not disagree with the overbreadth analysis of section one of the statute, I would not reach this issue as appellant has no standing to assert it. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613-15 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2916-18 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 766-75 , 102 S.Ct. 3348, 3359-63 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982); Sandstrom v. Leader, 370 So.2d 3 (Fla.1979); State v. Summers, 651 So.2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Pallas v. State, 636 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), approved, 654 So.2d 127 (Fla.1995).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7708080. Public record. Not legal advice.