SAMUEL PATRICK O'HARA, 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 the trial court abused its discretion by granting the state's motion in limine precluding the defense of causation in a DUI manslaughter case.
Appellant was convicted of DUI manslaughter. The trial court granted the state's motion in limine, preventing the defense from arguing causation.…
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 Causation In Criminal Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
O’Hara appeals his conviction and sentence for DUI manslaughter. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the state’s motion in limine precluding his defense based on causation, by permitting two troopers to testify as experts, by denying his requested instruction on causation, and by instructing the jury regarding a blood alcohol level presumption. We agree as to the first issue and reverse without addressing the remaining issues raised on appeal.
As this court noted in Satterfield v. State, 553 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), uncertainty existed at the time these cases were tried as to whether the amended statute, section 316.193(3)(c) Florida Statutes (1986), required proof of a causal relationship. Like the trial judge in Satterfield, the trial judge in the instant case did not have the benefit of the supreme court’s answer to this court’s certified question in Magaw v. State, 537 So. 2d 564 (Fla.1989). In Magaw, the Supreme Court held that prior decisions holding a showing of no causal relationship necessary were no longer valid in light of the amended statute. We caution, as did the supreme court in Magaw, however:
that the statute does not say that the operator of the vehicle must be the sole cause of the fatal accident. The statute requires only that the operation of the vehicle should have caused the accident. Therefore, any deviation or lack of care on the part of a driver under the influence to which the fatal accident can be attributed will suffice. (Emphasis added).
Magaw v. State, 537 So. 2d at 567. In accordance with Magaw, it is necessary that we reverse the trial court’s decision to grant the state’s motion in limine excluding the issue of causation and remand for a new trial.
SMITH, ZEHMER and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Polak, 598 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…efendants’ motion in limine. Our standard of review of a lower tribunal’s ruling on a motion in limine is abuse of discretion.5 Saavedra v. State, 576 So. 2d 953, 961 (Fla. 1st DCA), jurisdiction accepted, 584 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1991); O’Hara v. State, 554 So. 2d 26, 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). A motion in limine is one in effect suppressing evidence, State v. Patmore, 495 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1986), and in matters concerning the suppression of evidence, the trial judge sits as both trier of fact and of law. The…
Authorities Cited
- Magaw v. State, 537 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1989)
- Satterfield v. State, 553 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)