CINDILOU BREEDING, 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.
Cindilou Breeding appeals her conviction for vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident with death. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of reckless driving rather than mere carelessness.
The conviction was affirmed because there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for reckless driving. The jury could properly find, based on conflicting testimony and the defendant's own statements, that the defendant crossed the line from carelessness to recklessness.
[1] Where there is room for a difference of opinion between reasonable persons as to the proof or facts from which an ultimate fact is sought to be established, or as to the…
[2] The credibility and probative force of conflicting testimony should not be determined on a motion for judgment of acquittal.
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 intelligence“The dividing line between lack of care required for proof of vehicular homicide by reckless operation of a motor vehicle in a manner likely to cause death and careless driving, a noncriminal traffic offense, is obviously hard to draw.”
Establishes the difficulty in distinguishing between recklessness and carelessness in vehicular homicide cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Breeding was convicted of vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident with death. The case involved conflicting statements from …
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 Careless Driving cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals her conviction and sentence for vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident with death. We affirm.
As the First District stated in Pitts v. State, 473 So. 2d 1370, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985):
The dividing line between lack of care required for proof of vehicular homicide by reckless operation of a motor vehicle in a manner likely to cause death and careless driving, a noncriminal traffic offense, is obviously hard to draw.
However:
Where there is room for a difference of opinion between reasonable men as to the proof or facts from which an ultimate fact is sought to be established, or where there is room for such differences as the inferences which might be drawn from conceded facts, the court should submit the case to the jury for their finding, as it is their conclusion, in such cases, that should prevail and not primarily the views of the judge. The credibility and probative force of the conflicting testimony should not be determined on a motion for judgment of acquittal.
Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1974).
In this case, taking the view of the facts, as we must, most favorable to affirmance of the conviction, we find that there was sufficient evidence which would sustain the conviction for reckless driving. The jury had to deal with two directly conflicting statements by the defendant herself as well as testimony from an eyewitness describing the incident. There were sufficient facts, if believed by the jury, to show that defendant crossed the line from carelessness to recklessness. Based on the foregoing, we therefore must affirm the final judgment of conviction.
GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs and dissents with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the affirmance of appellant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident but I would reverse the conviction for manslaughter by reckless driving. While there is adequate support in the record to conclude that appellant acted carelessly, I do not believe there is any evidence to support a conclusion that she operated her automobile “with a wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property,” the standard set out by the trial court in its instructions to the jury. Cf. Smith v. State, 65 So. 2d 303 (Fla.1953).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)
- Smith v. State, 65 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1953)
- Pitts v. State, 473 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)