JAMES DALE HIGH, APPELLANT,
v.
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 evidence of excessive speed, combined with other attendant circumstances and conduct, was sufficient to support a conviction for manslaughter.
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter following an automobile accident that resulted in three deaths. The conviction was based, in part, on evidence…
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 Culpable Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented to convict him of manslaughter. The charges resulted from an automobile accident in which three people died.
Appellant contends that proof of excessive speed alone is not sufficient to prove the culpable negligence necessary to sustain a manslaughter conviction. Appellant relies chiefly on Johnson v. State, 92 So. 2d 651 (Fla.1957) and Filmon v. State, 336 So. 2d 586 (Fla.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 980, 97 S.Ct. 1675, 52 L.Ed.2d 375 (1977), reh. denied, 431 U.S. 960, 97 S.Ct. 2689, 53 L.Ed.2d 279 (1977). The holding in Johnson, however, is actually the “flip-side” of appellant’s argument that speed alone is insufficient. The Johnson court stated: “It cannot be stated as an absolute rule that speed alone cannot amount to manslaughter. Too much depends on the attendant circumstances.” 92 So. 2d at 653. Likewise, in Filmon, 336 So. 2d at 590, the court talks of the “totality of the circumstances surrounding the incident....”
We conclude in this case that there were sufficient other circumstances and conduct by appellant, other than speed, to support the conviction for manslaughter. This case is clearly distinguishable from Brown v. State, 511 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) where this court found “the complete record in this case presents us with absolutely no evidence of any of these factors except the 30 m.p.h. speed limit.”
Affirmed.
DANAHY, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Logan v. State, 592 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…, 97 S.Ct. 2689, 53 L.Ed.2d 279 (1977), the supreme court explained that the key to determining culpable negligence in cases involving operation of a motor vehicle is the “totality of circumstances surrounding the incident.”6 See also High v. State, 516 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). In the present case, several of the traffic violations referenced in the instructions took place a substantial physical and temporal distance from this accident. None is of the character to evince gross, flagrant disregard for hu…
Authorities Cited
- Filmon v. State, 336 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1976)
- Siciliano v. New York, 430 U.S. 980 (U.S. 1977)
- Scibelli v. United States, 431 U.S. 960 (U.S. 1977)
- Del. Tribal Bus. Comm. v. Weeks, 431 U.S. 960 (U.S. 1977)
- Ulysses Johnson v. State, 92 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1957)
- Brown v. State, 511 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)