OLIVER LEE LASTER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a dissenting opinion from the Florida Supreme Court regarding a manslaughter conviction. The dissenting justice argued that the evidence did not support a finding of unlawful or culpable negligence in the driving of an automobile that resulted in a child's death.
The dissenting justice held that the evidence failed to show the appellant was driving unlawfully or with culpable negligence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction should be reversed.
“The evidence fails to show that appellant in the driving of the automobile was guilty of driving same in an unlawful manner or that he was then and there guilty of culpable negligence as defined by us in Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360, 361.”
This quote explains the core of the dissent's argument that the evidence did not meet the legal threshold for the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of manslaughter for the death of a child. The child, while with her father, suddenly ran across the highway in front of th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Manslaughter By Culpable Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
dissenting:
Appellant was convicted under an information charging him with the commission of the crime of manslaughter by means of the unlawful and culpable negligence in the driving of an automobile.
From judgment of conviction he has perfected his appeal.
The record shows that while appellant was lawfully driving along a paved highway a little girl, who with her parents had alighted from another automobile for the purpose of gathering wild flowers, suddenly attempted to run across the highway (from the side where her father was with her to the other side where her mother was gathering flowers) immediately in front of the on-coming automobile driven by appellant and was struck and killed by such automobile.
The evidence fails to show that appellant in the driving of the automobile was guilty of driving same in an unlawful manner or that he was then and there guilty of culpable negligence as defined by us in Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 *154So. 360, 361. See also Franklin v. State, 120 Fla. 686, 163 So. 55; Pitts v. State, 134 Fla. 626, 184 So. 646; Ehrens v. Miami Transit Co., 155 Fla. 394, 20 So. (2nd) 261.
It, therefore, follows that I think the judgment should be reversed.
BARNS, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cannon v. State, 107 So. 360 (Fla. 1926)
- Franklin v. State, 120 Fla. 686 (Fla. 1935)
- Ehrans v. Miami Transit Co., 155 Fla. 394 (Fla. 1944)
- Pittman v. State, 134 Fla. 626 (Fla. 1938)