This Florida District Court of Appeal case assessed how broadly the Florida statute, which makes it a crime for an HIV positive person to knowingly have "sexual intercourse" without disclosure, could be applied. The court held that the defendant's "homosexual oral and anal sex" are included in the acts the statute deems unlawful and reversed the trial court's order to dismiss the charge.
The court relied on legislative intent, claiming the lawmakers who wrote the statute intended to broadly criminalize both heterosexual and homosexual sex. The court referenced the legislature's assertion that the law should be "flexible" in light of "medical knowledge and information about sexually transmissible diseases [that] are rapidly changing," and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) webpage that stated HIV can be transmitted through anal, vaginal, and oral sex. Based on this, it found that the legislature clearly intended to prohibit all of these acts. However, the same CDC report also explained that HIV cannot be transmitted if there is no exposure to blood or semen containing a sufficient level of HIV, and the statute in all its "flexibility" still fails to account for this overwhelming scientific evidence.