JAMES PRITCHETT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the defendant's actions constituted culpable negligence sufficient for a manslaughter conviction, and any improperly admitted evidence was harmless error.
[1] Conduct demonstrating a gross and flagrant character, evincing reckless disregard of human life or safety, or an entire want of care raising a presumption of conscious in…
[2] A pilot's actions, including flying an aircraft dangerously close to ground obstacles and over populated areas, causing alarm to those on the ground, can support a convic…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant flew an aircraft dangerously close to a populated motel, causing people to take cover. Evidence showed the crash was due to pilot error,…
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 Reckless Disregard Of Human Life cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant’s actions, seen through the eyes of at least five observers, of flying the aircraft so near to the ground that he pulled up to avoid palm trees and antennae; making three or four passes at an altitude of forty or fifty feet above a populated motel causing people on the ground to take cover out of concern for their safety; and stating that the aircraft experienced a mechanical failure [which statement was, independent of the proof of the commission of the crime, shown to be false by expert testimony that the aircraft was in good working order and that the crash was caused by pilot error, see Brown v. State, 391 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Morgan v. State, 303 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) ] were sufficient to show his conduct to be of
“. . . a gross and flagrant character, evincing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or there is that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or that reckless indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them.”
Filmon v. State, 336 So. 2d 586, 589-90 (Fla.1976), quoting Miller v. State, 75 So. 2d 312, 313—14 (Fla.1954); see Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360 (Fla.1926); accord, McCreary v. State, 371 So. 2d 1024 (Fla.1979), and to warrant a conviction for manslaughter by culpable negligence of a passenger in the defendant’s plane.
Even if, arguendo, any evidence against the defendant should not have been admitted, but see Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); State v. Sobel, 363 So. 2d 324 (Fla.1978); Freimuth v. State, 272 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1972); State v. Gibson, 362 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), the admission of such evidence was harmless and did not unduly prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966)
- Cannon v. State, 107 So. 360 (Fla. 1926)
- McCREARY v. State, 371 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1979)
- Filmon v. State, 336 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1976)
- State v. Sobel, 363 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1978)
- Miller v. State, 75 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1954)
- Freimuth v. State, 272 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1972)
- Mervin Brown v. State, 391 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Morgan v. State, 303 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Sigrun Anke Merrill v. Merrill, 362 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)