Filing # 147737237 E-Filed 04/14/2022 04:18:53 PM. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BRADFORD COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, CASENO.: 2021-CF-00619 Plaintiff, DIVISION: Felony 23-B vs. LAINIE KAY RODGERS, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S SWORN AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW COMES NOW, LAINIE KAY RODGERS, by and through her undersigned Counsel and pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), respectfully requests that this Court center an order dismissing the criminal charges filed against the Defendant, in this case. As grounds for this request, Defendant shows the Court (here are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie ease of guilt against Defendant. ‘The facts and law upon which this motion is based are as follows: FACTUAL B. 1. Defendant is currently charged with three (3) counts of criminal violations. Two (2) of the four (4) charges were added via an Amended Information filed on March 11, 2022, in the Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circui in and for, Bradford County, Florida, 2, Count I, is violation of § 847.0138 (2)-Transmission of material harmful to minors to a minor by electronic device or equipment prohibited. “The State of Florida, under oath, alleges by information that Lainie Rodgers, in Bradford County, Florida, between January Electronically Filed Bradford Case # 21000619CFAXMX 04/14/2022 04:18:53 PM1, 2021 and September 16, 2021 did knowingly transmit an image, information, o data that is harmful to minors, as defined in section 847.0138(2), to wit: sending photographs of the naked buttocks and/or other body parts of the defendant via electronic communications, to a specific individual known by the defendant to be minor, to wit:INIlllcontrary to Section 847.0138(2), Florida Statutes, May, 3, 2021 (LS) [FDLE #5264].” ‘There is no proof of transmission of a “naked buttock” from the Defendant to I ‘The photograph identified as the “naked buttocks” photograph relied upon in the Amended Information, is a photograph of a buttocks with underwear which was merely located on the Defendant's camera roll, WITH ZERO PROOF OF TRANSMISSION to [Il MIB Cenied receiving any transmissions from the Defendant that were sexual or harmful in nature, under the law. Detective Crews testified that there are zero harmful, inappropriate, sexual, or explicit messages transmitted from the Defendant to [I Count I, is violation of § 800.101- Offenses against students by authority figures. “The State of Florida, under oath, further alleges, by information that Lainie Rodgers, in Bradford County, Florida, between January 1, 2021 and September 16, 2021, being an authority figure and being a person eighteen (18) years of age or older, to wit twenty-three (23) ot twenty-four (24) years of age and who was employed by, volunteering at, or under contract with a school, to wit: Bradford County Middle School, did solicit and/or engage in sexual conduct and/or a relationship of a romantic nature and/or lewd conduct with a student, to wit: engaging in sexual and/or sexually suggestive communications with a minor and/or engaging in kissing and/or fondling with said minor, contrary to Section 800.101, Florida Statutes. (L4) [FDLE #8532,#8533,48534].”8, MM confirmed that the Defendant never solicited her or engaged in any illegal sexual conduct, or a relationship of a romantic nature. 9, MINI stated that the Defendant consistently refused her advances. 10, There were no sexually suggestive communications betwecnlfland the Defendant. 11. The Defendant repeatedly rebuked all of IMM efforts to turn their friendship into a romantic relationship, 12. [lllconfirmed that she did not have a romantic relationship with the Defendant. 13, Count IIL, is violation of § 847.0135(3)(a), Certain Uses of Computer Services or Devices Prohibited. “The State of Florida, under oath, further alleges, by information that Lainie Rodgers, in Bradford County, Florida, between January 1, 202 1 and September 16, 2021, did knowingly use a computer online service, Internet service, local bulletin board service, or any other device capable of electronic data storage or transmission to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child, or another person she believe to be a child 10 commit an illegal act described in chapter 794, chapter 800, or chapter 827 or to otherwise engage in any unlawful sexual conduct ,with a child, or with another person believed by Lainie Rodgers to be a child, to wit: to send or exchange lewd text messages, photographs, or other communications of a lewd nature and/or to engage in kissing and fondling of the breasts or sexual organs of the Defendant by said child or of the child by said Defendant, contrary to Section 847.0135(3\a), Florida Statutes, (L 7) (PDLE #6338)” 14, The required underlying offense, namely Count IV, Lewd and Lascivious on a minor less than 16 years of age, was wrongfully charged, and later dropped.15. Count II requires an identified charge within Ch. 800 to be charged simultaneously. Because Count IV has been dropped, Count III must be as well. 16. Additionally, Count III requires the State to show a prima facie case that the Defendant solicited, lured, enticed, or attempted to, to commit an illegal act as described, with an electronic device, which the State has failed to do. 17. There is zero evidence of use of “certain uses of computer services or devices” by the Defendant to solicit, lure, entice, or attempt to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with = 18. Count IV, is violation of § 800.04(5)(¢)(2), Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age. “The State of Florida, under oath, further alleges, by information that Lainie Rodgers, in Bradford County, Florida, between January |, 2021, and September 1, 2021, being a person eighteen (18) years of age or older, to wit: approximately twenty-three (23) or twenty-four (24) years of age did intentionally touch ima lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them of IINNME « person twelve (12) years of age or older but less than. sixteen (16) years of age, to wit: approximately fifteen (15) years of age or did force or entice [MINIM 10 so touch Lainie Rodgers, contrary to Section 800.04(5)(c)2), Florida Statutes. (L7) [FDLE #4011].” MEMORANDUM OF LAW In Florida, the purpose of a motion to dismiss filed under Rule 3.190(c)(4) is to determine whether the State has shown facts which it can rely upon to establish a prima facie case of guilt against a defendant, without wasting valuable court time. As explained by the Florida Supreme Court, the function of the (¢)(4) motion to dismiss is to ascertain whether or not the facts whichthe State relies upon to constitute the crime charged, and on which it will offer evidence to prove it, do, as a matter of law, establish a prima facie case of guilt of the accused. State v. Davis, 243 So.2d 587 (Fla.1971). The Court further provided guidance to the trial courts of this State elaborating: However, it does appear clear that a motion to dismiss under Rule 1.190(b)(c) and (@) may also be a vehicle to ascertain whether or not the facts which the state relies upon to constitute the crime charged, and on which it will offer evidence to prove it, do, as a matter of law, establish a prima facie case of guilt of the accused. Id, at 591 Should the prosecution choose to traverse this motion, the State’s traverse must dispute “material” facts. In State v. Hysell, the 5th DCA held that a traverse mandated the denial of a motion to dismiss only when it “creates a dispute as to material evidentiary facts.” The motion to dlismiss was granted in that case because the state’s traverse simply “disputed the legal effect” of the facts, 569 So, 2d 866, 867 (Fla. Sth DCA 1990). In State v, Nunez, the 3rd DCA held that the state’s traverse was inadequate to defeat the defendant’s motion to dismiss, because “a traverse requires more than a did not, did so swearing maich.” 881 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004). NO ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT/NO PRIMA FACIE OF GUILT COUNT IV-LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS OFFENSES COMMITTED UPON OR IN ‘THE PRESENCE OF PERSONS LESS THAN 16 YEARS OF AGE. Standard Jury Instruction, number 11.10(e) unambiguously expresses the following: To prove the crime of Lewd or Lascivious Molestation, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Give 1a and/or 1b as applicable. 1. (Defendant), a, in a lewd or lascivious manner, intentionally touched the [breasts] [genitals] [genital area] [buttocks] [clothing covering the breasts] [clothing covering the genitals] [elothing covering the genital areal [clothing covering the buttocks} of (victim).b. ina lewd or lascivious manner, intentionally [forced] [enticed] (victim) to touch the [breasts] [genitals] [genital area] [buttocks] [clothing covering the breasts] [clothing covering the genitals] [clothing covering the genital area] [clothing covering the buttocks] of (defendant). Give 2a or 2b as applicable. 2. At the time of the offense, (victim) a, _ was 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age. Give 3a or 3b as applicable. 3. At the time of the offense, (defendant) a. was 18 years of age or older. ‘The subsection of the Statute that the State charged under is (5)(c)(2), which includes: “(5) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS MOLESTATION.— (c) 2. An offender 18 years of age or older who ‘commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age.” Florida Statutes § 800.04, (2021). Shockingly, the State amended the original Information and swore that it “received testimony, under oath from the material witness or witnesses” relating to Count IV, prior to charging Count IV. Meaning, surely, the State, prior to charging the Defendant with such a serious crime WHICH HAS AN AGE REQUIREMENT, had taken swom testimony from a witness, or at the very least, bad verified the alleged victim's age. Inexplicably, that is not the case here. At all relevant times the alleged victim was well over the age of sixteen (16). The alleged victim confirmed the following: 5 Q.And what's your date of birth, EP 5‘ iii” (Dep. Tr. MP., p.8, Mar. 17, 2022), Q You tumed —- you had your Ililbirthday on ES «igh? A. Yes, ma'am, Q. So from Jannary 1, 2021, to September 16, 2021, you were in fact JP A. Yes, ma'am. eerans(id at 57). The State, COULD NEVER and CAN NEVER establish a prima facie case of guilt against the Defendant relating to this AGE SPECIFIC crime with the undisputed material fact of the victim’s age established, under oath. The Statute clearly requires a victim to be “LESS THAN 16 YEARS OF AGE” prior to charging a Defendant with this crime. The alleged victim in this matter was glaringly over sixteen (16) years of age during the relevant time frame. The State dropped this charge as of the filing of this Motion, B. COUNT II-CERTAIN USES OF COMPUTER SERVICES OR DEVICES PROHIBITED. Count II was also added to the Amended Information simultaneous to Count IV being added, based upon the State’s assertion that it acquired testimony, under oath, from a material witness to support its allegation of criminal conduct described within Statute, 847.0135(3)(a), which states: (3) CERTAIN USES OF COMPUTER SERVICES OR DEVICES PROHIBITED.—Any person. who knowingly uses a computer online service, Internet service, local bulletin board service, or any other device capable of electronic data storage or transmission to: (a) Seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, a child or another person believed by the person to be a child, to commit any illegal act deseribed in chapter 794, chapter 800, or chapter 827, or to otherwise engage in any unlawful sexual conduct with a child or with another person believed by the person to be a child. Next, this legal sufficiency analysis requires the Standard Jury Instruction, number 11.17(a) to be reviewed and applied, specifically: To prove the crime of Soliciting a [Child] [Person Believed by the Defendant to be a Chili] for Unlawful Sexual Conduct Using Computer Services or Devices, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) knowingly used a[n] [computer on-line service] [Internet service} [local bulletin board service] [device capable of electronic data storage or transmission] to contact (victim), 2. (Victim) was a child or a person believed by the defendant to be a child.3. During that contact, (defendant) [seduced] [solicited] [lured] [enticed] {attempted to [seduce] [solicit] [lure] [entice] (victim) to [commit (any illegal act as charged in the indictment or information under chapter 794, 800, or 827)] [or] {engage in (other untawful sexual conduct with a child or with a person believed by the defendant to be a child)]. Definitions. “Sexual conduct” means actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, or sadomasochistic abuse; actual lewd exhibition of the genitals; actual physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if such person is a female, breast with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of either party; or any act or conduct which constitutes sexual battery or simulates that sexual battery is being or will be committed. A mother’s breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance constitute “sexual conduct.” Give if applicable. § 775.0862, Fla. Stat Enhancement for sexual offense against student by sehool authority figure Ifyou find that (defendant) committed the crime of Soliciting a [Child] [Person Believed by the Defendant to be a Child] for Unlawful Sexual Conduct Using Computer Services or Devices, you must also determine whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) was an authority figure at a school and (victim) was a student at the same school. It is clear from the State's statement of the alleged offense within the Amended Information, and the fact that the State amended the Information to include both Counts IIT and IV simultaneously, that the State is alleging that the crime of Lewd and Lascivious Molestation on a victim less than sixteen (16) years of age is the crime that the Defendant illegally used a computer to “[seduced] {solicited} [lured] [enticed] [attempted to [seduce] [solicit] [lure] [entice]]” the alleged victim into. NO ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACT OCCURRED IN THIS MATI ER. This undisputed, material fact makes it clear that the State has not, and can’t ever, establish a prima facie case of guilt against the Defendant. Additionally, it is clear and unambiguous by the plain reading of the applicable Jury Instruction here that the crime of Offenses Against Students by Authority Figures can’t be the sex “act” that this Statute contemplates. The fact of whether the Defendant was an “authority figur and the alleged victim a “student” are elements, which if proven, enhances the punishment afterconviction of illegal use of computer device, rather than establishing an additional, allowable charge. Meaning, Count I would be subsumed by Count Ill in order to not violate the constitutional right against “double jeopardy”. ‘The Defendant can’t be prosecuted for the same offense, twice. Equally, the Statute, which is further magnified by the Jury Instruction, requires an “illegal act”-ie. an illegal sex act. An authority figure engaging in an alleged “romantic relationship” is not an “act” and certainly not a defined ‘sex act” as stated in Chapters 794-sexual battery, 800- Jewd and lascivious, and 827-abuse of children. Because there is no issue of material fact, Defendant has properly placed this Count within the purview of the Court to dismiss for the State’s failure to establish a prima facie case of guilt against the Defendant, at this stage. (C. COUNT I- TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL HARMFUL TO MINORS. According to Standard Jury Instruetion, number 11,21 ‘To prove the crime of Transmission of Material Harmful to Minors by Electronic Device or Equipment, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) knowingly sent an image, information or data that [he] [she] knew or believed to be “harmful to minors.” 2. (Defendant) sent the image, information or data to a specific individual who was either actually known by [him] [her] to be a minor or believed by [him] [her] to be aminor. 3. (Defendant) sent the image, information or data via electronic mail. Definitions. Give as applicable. $ 847.001(6), Fla. Stat. ‘An image, information, or data that is “harmful to minors” means any reproduction, imitation, characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement when it: (a) Predominately appeals to a prurient, shameful, or morbid interest; (b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with, respect to what is suitable material or conduct for minors; and (©) Taken as a whole, is without scrious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.Here, the undisputed facts include the alleged victim’s swom testimony taken on March 17, 2022, which shatters the States ability to establish a prima facie ease of guilt against the Defendant, The swom testimony unquestionably verifies that the Defendant never transmitted a single “image, information, or data harmful to minors” via electronic mail. Specifically, [testified as follows: 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ewan 10 12 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 Q There's something about a “booty pic”, but has anybody ever showed you a picture and asked you to identify it? A. No, ma'am. Q Okay. Has anybody ever said, you know, "Is this the picture that you saw?" A. No, ma'am, Q. Okay. Isnt it true that, when Ms, Rodgers was on her weight loss journey and doing her working out, you know, it was very common to say, "Look at ~~ look, I lost this weight," or "Look, this is looking better now"? Isn't that true? A. Yes, ma'am, Q. Isn't that a thing on Snapchat now? A. Yes, ma'am. Q Yeah. You-all got a lot more courage than I ever ‘would, but ~ so you could have seen a “booty pie”, right? A. Yes, ma'am. Q It doesn’t mean that it was sexual in nature, correct? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Okay, And can you positively state that one was even transmitted to you anywhere? A. I mean, like I said, at the time, I mean, I had multiple girls, like, I was talking to, so I would get, like, you know, just things said to me and sent to me all the time, ibut it's not like I just remembered every single and who it was from. Q. Ofcourse. Right, you were confused. A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Yeah. Okay. ‘There was never any sexually expl Lainie Rodgers to you, correct? ‘A. No, ma'am. Q. Right? And there was never any -- there's a statement ~ let me ask you, and I may not be saying the name photos from 1014 15 16 17 18 19 right. A. Ubshuh, Q. Okay. Are you friends with her? A. No, ma'am. Q. Okay, You're aware that she claims that she saw something A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Okay. First of all, how -- she wouldn't have any way to know who transmitted anything to you on your cell phone, right? A. No, ma'am. Q. Okay. And was she lying when she said that? A. Yes, malam. Probably. Q. Okay. Because there's nothing that's been transmitted between you and Ms. Rodgers in a sexual connotation? A. Yes, ma'am, Q. Is that a "yes, ma'am"? Yes, ma'am. (Dep. Tr., IML, pp. 50-3, Mar. 17, 2022). 10 iL 12 (Id, at p. 56.). Clearly, the alleged victim’s testimony regarding her and the Defendant's communications over electronic devices is purely exculpatory and confirms that there are no issues of material facts. Ifa picture of the naked buttoc victim would not be able to recall if a photograph of “naked buttocks” was transmitted by the Defendant to her, and if a single photograph was transmitted it was not of a sexual nature-NONE Q. So we just took a brief recess, [], and I just - I just want to make sure that [ understood and that I asked a good question, and you ~ and that you answered the question that you thought that I asked. you are aware that she asserted that she allegedly saw a text of a sexual nature that she claimed was from Lainie Rodgers to you? You're aware of that? A, Yes; ma'am. Q. But that never happened, right? A. Yes, ma'am, a s was transmitted by the Defendant to the alleged victim, first theof their communications were intended to be sexual in nature. IMI confirmed that she never received a photograph that included a naked body part from the Defendant. Importantly, the State does not have a scintilla of evidence of ANY transmission of texts, communication or, photographs of sexual, harmful, or illegal nature from the Defendant to I ‘The photograph the State is relying upon for its prima fucie showing of guilt of the Defendant is of an unknown individual's buttocks, with underwear on; this photograph is not of naked buttocks. (See Dep. Ir., Part 1, Crews, Composite Ex. 1, Mar. 28, 2022). Detective Crews testified that he just, “selected,” a photograph of buttocks from within the Defendant’s camera roll, Detective Crews never had the alleged Victim identify the photograph that he relied upon to support the charge of Transmission of Material Harmful to a minor, Even if said picture was in fact the Defendant's buttocks, the buttocks are not naked as the unknown individual has underwear on Additionally, Detective Crews indicated in his warrant affidavit and during his deposition, on March 28, 2022, that the photograph was NOT transmitted, it was merely in the camera roll of the Defendant’s cellular telephone, During the deposition Detective Crews confirmed that there was no evidence of transmission, relevantly: 22 Q. Well keep going. 23 Number three, "Any and all images of Lainie 24 Rodgers’ naked buttocks, along with the proof of 25 transmission to the minor, IM, in reference to the Case No. 210FF001939. Specifically including the image used to charge Count I, "due to transmitting a picture of her naked buttocks to HB as written in your, (Detective James Crews) warrant affidavit sworn to on September 20, 2021." ‘Where is that photograph and proof of transmission of that photo? A. The naked buttocks is in her camera roll. ‘The proof is a victim statement. That was not able 0 to be found in the cell phone extraction. Beer aueene 214 Q, Okay. And you just took a screenshot off a 15 camera roll of Lainie Rodgers’ cell phone, but never 16 had I look at it to identify whether or not she 17 _ had ever seen that photograph before, correct? 18 A, That's correet. (Dep. Tr., Part 1, Crews, p.46-47, p. 51, Mar. 28, 2022.). Detective Crews testified that there is zero evidence of transmission of that photograph to HEE within the cell phone extraction from the Defendant's cell phone. Detective Crews further icated during the depo ion that the State is still not in possession. of any proof of ANY unlawful transmission from the Defendant to I just want to be clear, not Aswe sit here today you have not come into possession of any proof, other than what you say HEB sid to you, of transmission of harmful 10 materials to a minor? 11 A. That's correct, (Dep. Tr., Part 1, Crews, p.l 4). Detective Crews testified during Part two (2) of his deposition that there is not a single transmission of a sexual nature on the Defendant’s cell phone, his testimony precisely states: 23 Q. Okay, So ean you point to a single electronic 24 transmission of a sexual nature? 25 A, Cam I point toa -— 1 Q. Can you identify one, sir, as we sit here today? 2 A. No, Idon't see any in these messages. 3 Q. Is that a "no," sir? 4 A, That's a no, (Dep. Tr., Part 2, Crews, p. 162, 163, April 1, 2022), The State is not in possession of any proof of an illegal transmission between the Defendant ond 13Undersigned Counsel took the alleged Victim’s deposition on March 17, 2022. Significantly, IMI testified that the Defendant never transmitted any sexually explicit photographs to her. Definitely, Hlstated: ML 12 13 14 15 16 7 18, 19 20 2 22 23 Q Okay. And can you positively state that one was even transmitted to you anywhere? ‘A. Imean, like I said, at the time, I mean, I had multiple girls, like, T was talking to, so I would get, like, you know, just things said to me and sent to me all the time, but it's not like I just remembered every single and who it vwas from. Q Ofcourse. Right, you were confused. A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Yeah, Okay. ‘There was never any sexually explicit photos from Lainie Rodgers to you, correct? No, ma'am, MM p.51, Mar. 17, 2022), Additionally JI further testified to the following: 14 15 16 7 18 19 Q. Okay, Because there's nothing that's been transmitted between you and Ms. Rodgers in a sexual connotation? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Is that a"yes, ma'am"? A. Yes, ma'am. (Dep. Tr. I p.52). Accordingly, there is no prima facie showing of guilt against the Defendant to support Count I-Transmission of Material Harmful to a Minor, even if the facts are taken as true. Importantly, INI testified that the Defendant never transmitted any sexually explicit photographs, sexually explicit text messages or any sexually explicit communication from any platform, whatever. 4COUNT IL-OFFENSES AGAINST STUDENTS BY AUTHORITY FIGURES. Although there is not a standard jury instruction for the ctime charged in Count Il, the Statute expresses that the State must prove the following elements: 1) (Defendant) was an authority figure; 2) (Defendant) solicited or engaged in- (a) sexual conduct; (b) a relationship of a romantic nature; or (c) Lewd conduct, and 3) with a student. (Florida Statutes § 800.101 (2021). The alleged victim’s testimony, again, prevents the State from establishing a prima facie case of guilt against the Defendant or from creating any ssue of material fact. Significantly, the alleged victim testified to the following: 11 Q. Okay. And then you wrote a statement} is that true? 12 A. Yes, ma'am. 13 Q Okay. And in that statement, you admitted that, you 14 know, some of the stuff was caused by you, so to speak, 15 bragging to your friends, right? 16 A. Yes, ma'am. 17 Q. Okay. And that itmade you feel good to — Til use 18 your words, Let me just look here, 19 A. Ifyou can read it. 20 _Q. Idid have to spend a litte time, but that's okay. 21. Youknow, they say people that have not very good handwriting 22 are bnlliant, so there you go. 23. A. Thope that’s the truth. 24 Q So— you'll have to give mea second. 25 Okay, So you admitted that you were trying to make more out of this relationship hecause you were excited, right? . Uh-huh. Okay. Is that a yes? Yes, ma'am. Okay. You had a crush on Lainie Rodgers, right? Yes, ma'am, Okay. She tried to be a good mentor to you, right? ‘Yes, ma'am. She tried to keep you on the right track? Yes, ma'am. ). Okay. She is a -- she's not a person that -- Q, She continuously and consistently advised you that you could be good friends, you could be best friends, but you could not be in a romantic relationship? eeu Aaueusens PO>OPOPOrePr Seas 1520 A. Yes, ma'am, Q. Right? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Okay, And each time that you made those advances or attempted to turn a friendship into a romantic relationship, she said, "We cannot do this"? ‘A. Yes, ma’am. Q. Okay. All right. So when you say you lied on September 16th, i's because you didn't go into depth, you didn't ~ A. No, ma'am. Q. tell Crews or anybody else what you've told us here today, right? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Okay. Allright, That was -- Ms. Rodgers, Lainie Rodgers, she docsn't swear that much, does she? A. No, ma'am. Q. Right. She’ fair to say? A. Yes, ma’am. Q Okay. So if somebody cussed around her, she may consider that inappropriate, right? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Okay. And isn'tit true that you had at one time advised her that you drank a ‘Truly? 1s that true? ‘Yes, ma‘am. And what's a Truly? I's an alcoholi¢ drink. Okay. And you told her you did that? Yes, mafam, She said, "Why? Yeah. ‘And you told her because — ‘We were out on the lake, I - just having fun .Yealh, right. She didn't she didn’t think that was very good, right? A. No, ma'am, Q Right. Asa matter of fact, her primary role in your life was, like I said, an older friend, a bigger sister? . Yes, ma'am, Keep you on track, right? ‘Yes, ma'am. ‘Try to help you out? Yes, matam’ Q. Okay, And cach and every time there was an attempt to turn a friendship, a mentorship, or a close relationship she has a strong faith. Is that DPOPOPOPOP > Q A. Q A 1616 into a romantic relationship, she pushed back? 17 A, Yes, ma'am. (Dep. Tr., ML pp. 50-1, 53-5). The State charged the Defendant with violation of this Statute due to its assertion that Lainie Rodgers and fll engaged in a romantic relationship. The Amended Information confirms that the State is neither alleging that the Defendant and alleged Victim engaged in sexual conduct nor lewd conduct, The analysis applies only to an alleged “romantic relationship.” ‘The alleged Victim’s testimony confirms that she and the Defendant were NEVER in a romantic relationship, it was merely the all-too-common sophomoric desire of the emotionally underdeveloped teenager to date the older Defendant. The alleged Victim established that the Defendant thwarted all her juvenile advances, and solely filled the role of a mentor or of an “older friend” not a romantic partner. There are no issues of material fact and the State has failed to establish a prima facie case that an authority figure, the Defendant, engaged in a romantic relationship with a student, the alleged Vietim, Allowing the Court to dismiss this Count, today. In this case, the State has not established a prima facie case that L inie Rodger’s is guilty of committing the erimes charged within Counts I-IUL. The deposition testimony, coupled with the State’s inability to establish a prima facie case of guilt and can’t dispute any material facts sworn. to within Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss allow this Court to exercise its authority to dismiss all charges, at this stage. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Lainie Rodgers, by and through undersigned Counsel, respectfully requests that this Court enter an order dismissing the criminal charges pending against her in this cause, v7SWORN AND AFFIRMED TO THIS 14" DAY OF APRIL, 2022, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished via the Florida ing Portal to eservice@sao8.org, and to lepiankal@sao8.org on this [4th day of April, BOBI J. FRANK, P.A. Bobi J. Frank ‘Attorney at Law Bobi@bfranklaw.com FBN: 0108889 18 NW 33rd CT Gainesville, PL 32607 352-639-4117 352-639-4118 Eservice@bfranklaw.com Secondary: Legal@bfranklaw.com 18