TARA ELIZABETH THRIFT

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

PER CURIAM.

Tara Elizabeth Thrift appeals her judgment of conviction for vehicular homicide. We affirm.

In the mid-morning of December 1, 2016, Thrift’s vehicle accelerated through a busy intersection in Jacksonville. In doing so, she sped through a red light and hit another vehicle stopped in a turn lane. The eighteen-year-old driver of the vehicle struck by Thrift was killed, and the seventeen-year-old passenger was very seriously injured. Drugs and alcohol did not factor in the crash and neither did road conditions or the weather.

At trial, witnesses testified that very shortly before the crash, Thrift was seen speeding, driving aggressively by swerving and “cutting off” other cars, making repeated illegal u-turns over concrete medians, and running a red light at another intersection minutes before running a second red light at the crash site. Intersection cameras also recorded Thrift running a red light at a very busy intersection, nearly hitting an oncoming car, just minutes before the fatal crash. Immediately before striking the victim’s sedan, Thrift’s minivan was seen stopped on the right shoulder of the roadway just outside the intersection were the victims’ vehicle was stopped. The minivan’s hazard lights were activated. Thrift then was seen to suddenly accelerate straight through the intersection. The brake lights of Thrift’s vehicle were not activated. Besides the testimony of the eyewitnesses to Thrift’s driving, the jury was also presented with still photographs and videos of Thrift’s van just before the crash taken from intersection cameras.

The jury was also presented video recordings of the crash itself.

In moving for a judgment of acquittal, Thrift argued the State had not proved she acted willfully or wantonly. The trial court denied Thrift’s motion explaining that, when considering the evidence in a light favorable to the prosecution, a fact question was presented as to whether Thrift’s conduct evidenced “a conscious and intentional indifference to consequences and knowledge that damage is likely to be done to persons or property.”

In reviewing a motion for judgment of acquittal, a de novo standard of review applies. See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002) (citing Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)); see also Dunn v. State, 206 So. 3d 802, 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). An appellate court will not generally reverse a conviction supported by competent, substantial evidence. Pagan, 830 So. 2d at 803; Donaldson v. State, 722 So. 2d 177, 182 (Fla. 1998). If, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction. Pagan, 830 So. 2d at 803; Dunn, 206 So. 3d at 804.

The offense of vehicular homicide is the killing of a human being “caused by the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another.” § 782.071, Fla. Stat. (2016). “The degree of culpability required for vehicular homicide is less than the level of culpable negligence necessary to prove manslaughter, but more than a mere failure to use ordinary care.” Santisteban v. State, 72 So. 3d 187, 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing McCreary v. State, 371 So. 2d 1024, 1026 (Fla. 1979)).

Vehicular homicide cannot be proven without also proving the elements of reckless driving, which requires proof of a “willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” State v. Del Rio, 854 So. 2d 692, 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see § 316.192(1), Fla. Stat (2016).

In a vehicular homicide case, the “focus is on the actions of the defendant and, considering the circumstances, whether it was reasonably foreseeable that death or great bodily harm could result.” State v. Gensler, 929 So. 2d 27, 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing D.E. v. State, 904 So. 2d 558, 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)).

We have not been persuaded that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a judgment of acquittal. The repeated instances of illegal as well as reckless driving maneuvers within a short distance from and short time before the crash would permit a trier of fact to conclude death or great bodily harm was foreseeable based on how Thrift was driving.

AFFIRMED. ROBERTS, ROWE, and BILBREY, JJ., concur. _____________________________