GARY CRAWFORD, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SHERIFF OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1983-07-14
No. 82-1355
DAUKSCH, J., and FOXMAN, Associate Judge, concur.
441 So. 2d 646 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

Crawford and Wilson appealed the forfeiture of a pickup truck under Florida's forfeiture statute, challenging whether the vehicle was used as an instrumentality in committing a felony. The court reversed the forfeiture, holding that the sheriff failed to present sufficient evidence that the truck's owner knowingly employed it in the commission of a felony.


Holding

The court reversed the forfeiture judgment, holding that the sheriff failed to meet its burden of proof. The evidence did not establish that the gun was knowingly and intentionally discharged, and even if discharged, such conduct constituted only a misdemeanor, not a felony. Moreover, there was no evidence that Crawford, the truck owner, employed the truck as an instrumentality in committing a felony or that he aided or abetted James in doing so.


Headnotes

[1] Forfeiture of property as an instrumentality of a felony requires proof that the property was used in the commission of a felony.

[2] A vehicle owner's mere presence during the commission of a felony by another is insufficient to establish the owner's use of the vehicle as an instrumentality in that fel…

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“the sheriff had the burden of proof to establish that the truck had been an instrumentality in the commission of a felony and the sheriff's evidence is entirely insufficient for that purpose”

Establishes that the burden rests on the sheriff and that the evidence presented was legally insufficient.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Deputies observed gunshots fired from the passenger window of Crawford's pickup truck traveling on a highway around 10:30 p.m. The deputies pulled the…

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.


Opinion of the Court
COWART, Judge.

COWART, Judge.

This case involves the forfeiture of a pickup truck under section 932.701 — 932.-704, Florida Statutes (1981).

The sole question is whether there was evidence that the pickup truck was used in the commission of a felony. The sheriff claimed that the pickup truck and other items were instrumentalities in the commission of two felonies, aggravated assault (§ 784.021, Fla.Stat. (1981)) and shooting at a vehicle (§ 790.19, Fla.Stat. (1981)).

Two witnesses (Deputy Loren and Deputy White) testified for the sheriff and two witnesses testified for the pickup truck owners (one owner, Gary Crawford, and James Wilson, Jr.). The two deputies testified that at about 10:30 p.m. each deputy was in a separate patrol car in a parking lot 70 to 80 feet from a highway when they heard an explosion and a nearby ricochet. When he heard this first shot, Deputy White looked towards the highway and saw a flash (a second shot) from the passenger window of Crawford’s pickup truck as it was traveling on the highway. Both officers followed the truck, one flashed overhead lights and the truck driver (Gary Crawford) pulled over making no attempt to elude the officers. James Wilson, Jr., was the passenger in the truck and neither occupant was in any way uncooperative.

Gary Crawford and James Wilson, Jr., testified they were returning from a hunting trip and both had rifles on the seat pointing toward the floorboard. Both testified that James’ rifle fell and discharged the first time through the floorboard and that James retrieved the rifle and while he was attempting to unload it, the gun fired a second time through the passenger’s side window and into the air. Both men testified they had not discussed or attempted to aim any rifle at any person or vehicle on the night in question.

Both Gary and James were initially charged with discharging a firearm in public but the State subsequently entered a nolle prosequi as to Gary and the County Court dismissed the case against James. The trial court, indicating disbelief of the testimony of Gary Crawford, granted forfeiture of the truck. We reverse.

The point is not that Gary or James had to be believed that the gun was accidentally discharged but that the sheriff had the burden of proof to establish that the truck had been an instrumentality in the commission of a felony and the sheriff’s evidence is entirely insufficient for that purpose. There is no evidence that James knowingly, meaning intentionally, discharged his firearm, which, even if true, constitutes a misdemeanor under section 790.15, Florida Statutes (1981), and, not being a felony, is insufficient for forfeiture under section 932.701(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1981).

Further, there is no evidence that James intended to, or did, commit a felony, i.e., that he made an aggravated assault on anyone or that he wantonly or maliciously shot within the vehicle. Further, even if James committed a felony in discharging his rifle, there is no evidence that Gary aided or abetted James as would be necessary under section 777.011, Florida Statutes (1981), in order for Gary to have been employing the truck as an instrumentality while aiding or abetting James in the commission of a felony, as contemplated by sections 932.-701(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1981), and as necessary in order to authorize the forfeiture of the truck under that statute. Gary’s mere presence when James committed a felony would be insufficient to incriminate Gary as an aider or abetter. The sheriff must show that the owner actually employed the truck as an instrumentality in the commission of a felony by the owner or that the owner employed the truck as an instrumentality while the owner was aiding or abetting someone else in the commission of a felony or that the owner had knowledge of, and consented to, or approved, such illegal use being made by someone else. See In re 36’ Uniflite, “Pioneer I,” Reg. No. FL 7894 AH, 398 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

The judgment of forfeiture of the pickup truck is

REVERSED.

DAUKSCH, J., and FOXMAN, Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …n of the felony of possession of a short-barreled shotgun. See In re: Forfeiture of 1978 Ford Fiesta, etc., 436 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Williams v. Miller, 433 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Cf. Crawford v. Sheriff of Orange County, Florida, 441 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). [*1025] The order dismissing the rule to show cause is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. REVERSED and REMANDED. COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . § 932.702, Florida…
  • Hales v. State, 487 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
    …). Furthermore, the one seeking forfeiture has the burden of proof to establish that the vehicle sought to be forfeited is contraband because it has been used as an instrumentality in the commission of a felony. Crawford v. Sheriff of Orange County, 441 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Mere suspicion is not enough to support a forfeiture. Wanicka v. One (1) 1979 Ford Bronco, Etc., 432 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Accordingly, the judgment forfeiting the Kenworth tractor truck as contraband is reversed. HER…
  • Grigioni v. Maitland Police Dep't, 490 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
    …2 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, Lamar v. Hayes, 451 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1984); In re Forfeiture of 1974 Ford Pickup Truck, VIN: F10GCT89110, Florida Tag DA-3485, 462 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Crawford v. Sheriff of Orange County, 441 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 451 So. 2d 850 (Fla.1984).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw