KEVIN THEODORE FRASER, 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 culpable negligence is not a necessarily lesser included offense of possessing a destructive device resulting in bodily injury, nor a permissive lesser included offense under the specific allegations.
Defendant was charged with possessing a destructive device resulting in bodily injury. The court considered whether culpable negligence was a lesser i…
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
COWART, Judge.
We affirm on the authority of McNeil v. Wisconsin, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991); Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1992); Owen v. State, 596 So. 2d 985 (Fla.1992); and State v. Lints, 596 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA1992).1
We further hold that the crime of culpable negligence, a misdemeanor under section 784.05(2), Florida Statutes, is not a necessarily lesser included offense of the offense of possessing a destructive device resulting in bodily injury as defined in section 790.161, Florida Statutes, and that under the allegations in the charging document the misdemeanor culpable negligence offense was not a permissive lesser included offense of the destructive device offense as alleged, although the facts in this particular case would have supported the giving of a verdict alternative jury instruction, and would have supported a conviction, if obtained, of culpable negligence, as a lesser included offense of the destructive device offense had the information charging the destructive device offense contained adequate allegations relating to culpable negligence as to satisfy due process and other legal requirements relating to criminal charges. See State v. Johnson, 601 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1992); Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1968).
We find the other issues raised by the defendant to be without merit and do not require discussion.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only.
. We note that this court’s decision in Walker v. State, 573 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA1991), rev. denied, 595 So. 2d 558 (Fla.1992), vacated and remanded, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1927, 118 L.Ed.2d 535 (1992), relied upon by the defendant, has recently been remanded to this court for reconsideration in light of McNeil v. Wisconsin.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1992)
- McNEIL v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1991)
- Owen v. State, 596 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Sinclair Johnson, 601 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1992)
- Walker v. State, 573 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Rankin v. State, 596 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)