Florida Supreme Court Rules Teacher Was Not In Position of Familial or Custodial Authority in Sexual Battery Case

October 30, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

In Florida, one of the most serious sentencing enhancements for sex offenses is the finding that the defendant was in a position of “familial or custodial authority” to the victim. This is quite common when the accused adult lives with the alleged victim, is blood related to the alleged victim, or were acting in a supervisory role at the time of the crime (e.g. teacher, pastor, coach).

Various sex crimes under Florida law (including sexual battery and lewd or lascivious offenses) carry significantly heavier penalties if someone is found to have committed this while occupying a position of familial or custodial authority. 

One of the most common examples is if an adult in a position of familial or custodial authority is accused of sexual battery on a minor aged 12 to 15. Though this is typically charged as lewd or lascivious battery (second-degree felony, up to 15 years in prison) if the sexual contact was not forced or coerced, this detail is irrelevant if the defendant is a family member or custodian.

If someone is found to have been in a position of familial or custodial authority and has sexual intercourse with a minor victim that would otherwise be considered lewd or lascivious battery, this is automatically considered sexual battery by someone in familial or custodial authority (Fla. Stat. 794.011(8)(a)), punishable by up to life in prison.

This is just one example – there are many other offenses that carry significantly harsher penalties if a defendant is found to be a family member or custodian. For more information on this, click here. 

Typically, for a defendant to be considered in a position of familial or custodial authority, at least one of the following must have been true at the time of the offense (Stricklen v. State, 504 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)): 

• They maintained a “close relationship” with the alleged child victim or other children of the specified age (such as a school employee)
• They lived in the same household as the alleged child victim

One of the most intriguing legal debates surrounding Florida’s “familial or custodial authority” enhancement is when it applies (and does not apply) to school employees, such as teachers. This is a frequent point of discussion if a school employee is accused of sexual battery on a minor or a related offense.

But few are aware this issue was squarely addressed by the Florida Supreme Court in a major decision – Hallberg v. State, 649 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1994). Let’s break down Hallberg and its impact on Florida sentencing law.

KEY CASE: Hallberg v. State, 649 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1994)

In Hallberg, the defendant (Hallberg) was charged with five counts of committing a lewd act upon a child (a lewd or lascivious offense) and three counts of sexual activity by a person in familial or custodial authority (now known as sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority). Hallberg was convicted on all counts.

On appeal, Hallberg argued that he was erroneously convicted of the “sexual activity” counts because he was not a person in familial or custodial authority. As Hallberg engaged in a sexual relationship with a middle school student over the summer, he was not an active class instructor at the time (due to the break).

The 2nd District Court of Appeal (Greater Tampa area) affirmed Hallberg’s convictions on all counts. It read Florida law’s definition of “familial or custodial authority” broadly, arguing that the fact that Hallberg served as a teacher at the victim’s school was dispositive (regardless of the fact that it was summer break).

But when Hallberg appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, the Court disagreed with the 2nd DCA and held in his favor. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that teachers are not always in positions of “custodial authority” for purposes of the statute – particularly when school has recessed for the summer.

The Florida Supreme Court wrote that it agreed with the analysis of 2nd DCA Judge Altenbernd, who dissented in Hallberg v. State, 621 So.2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Altenbernd wrote:

“These events did not occur during the school year or on school premises. They did not occur in connection with the activities of a recognized extracurricular event such as band or drama club. Mr. Hallberg went to the home of S.S. in the middle of summer vacation.”

“Although the parents of S.S. were generally aware that this man wanted S.S. to help him with a history project during the summer, these visits were not scheduled with her parents’ knowledge or consent. He simply showed up at the front door with a textbook and talked his way inside the house when only S.S. was at home.”

The Court ruled that because Hallberg was not actively the victim’s teacher at the time of the offenses, and because the victim’s parents had not delegated custodial authority to Hallberg (e.g. told Hallberg he could stay with/take care of the victim), he was not in a position of familial or custodial authority:

“It is clear S.S.’s parents did not place Hallberg in custodial control and authority over … We agree with Judge Altenbernd that the term ‘custodial,’ absent a statutory definition, must be construed in accordance with the commonly understood definition as one having custody and control of another. … This is a criminal statute and, consequently, we are mandated by section 775.021 to construe the term strictly and ‘when the language is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to the accused.’”

In essence, the majority ruled that because Hallberg was not obviously in a position of familial or custodial authority at the time of the activity, the three “sexual activity by person in familial or custodial authority” convictions had to be tossed out. However, the Court affirmed the remaining convictions.

Dissenting on this issue, Judge Shaw of the Florida Supreme Court urged the Court to adopt the 2nd DCA’s less defendant-friendly reading of the statute. Arguing that teachers who commit sex crimes with students are inherently in a position of custodial authority, Judge Shaw wrote:

“I disagree with this reasoning. If the legislature had intended the statute to apply only to those exercising actual custody and control over a child at the time of the sexual activity, it could easily have said so. Nowhere in the statute, however, is this requirement mentioned.”

“Instead, the statute provides that it applies to anyone who stands in a position of custodial authority. It is the position of authority that the person occupies, not the exercise of custody and control, that triggers the statute. This to my mind is eminently reasonable since it is the position of power and trust, not the exercise of custody, that gives the abuser undue sway over a child’s will.”

However, Judge Shaw’s opinion did not win the day. Ultimately, Hallberg remains the law today. Teachers (and other school employees) are not always considered to be in a position of familial or custodial authority in Florida as of 2025, though this depends on the facts of the case.

In sum, Hallberg v. State, 649 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1994) is a landmark Florida Supreme Court case on the issue of how familial or custodial authority is defined for purposes of this sentencing enhancement for sex crimes in Florida. The Court held that teachers and other “authority figures” are not inherently in a position of custodial authority in Florida if charged with a sex crime. 

For this designation to stick, a teacher or other school employee must be acting in loco parentis (acting in the place of a parent/other authority figure) at the time of the offense. The simple fact of being a teacher, including at a victim’s school, is insufficient to establish custodial authority without additional facts (e.g. act occurring on school premises or during school year).
If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida and concerned about whether they qualify as a family member or custodian for enhancement purposes, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share