ROBERT AARON MCGUIRE, 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.
Robert Aaron McGuire was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury in violation of Florida Statutes § 316.027(1)(a). The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence that the victim was incapable of receiving the required information and that McGuire failed to promptly report the accident to police as required by statute.
The trial court properly denied McGuire's motion for judgment of acquittal because there was sufficient evidence that the victim was incapable of receiving information and that McGuire failed to promptly report the accident to police as required by § 316.062(2). The conviction was affirmed.
[1] A driver involved in an accident resulting in injury must remain at the scene and provide information to the injured person, unless the injured person is unable to receiv…
[2] If the injured party cannot receive information and no police officer is present at the scene of an accident, the driver must forthwith report the accident to the nearest…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“another purpose of the statute is to ensure that an accident will "forthwith" be reported to the police so that it can promptly be investigated.”
Establishes that prompt police reporting is a critical statutory purpose, separate from ensuring the victim receives medical care.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcGuire was involved in an accident resulting in personal injury. The victim and McGuire knew each other, and McGuire ensured the victim was taken to …
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 Factual Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
[*428] PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury contrary to section 316.027(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1997). That section requires a driver to remain at the accident scene until the driver “has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062.” Section 316.062(1), Florida Statutes (1997), imposes certain duties on the driver of a vehicle involved in an “accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to any vehicle or other property,” including the giving of information to the person injured in the accident. Section 316.062(2), Florida Statutes (1997), provides:
(2) In the event none of the persons specified are in condition to receive the information to which they otherwise would be entitled under subsection (1), and no police officer is present, the driver of any vehicle involved in such accident, after fulfilling all other requirements of s. 316.027 and subsection (1), insofar as possible on his or her part to be performed, shall forthwith report the accident to the nearest office of a duly authorized police authority and submit thereto the information specified in subsection (1).
(Emphasis supplied).
The trial court properly denied appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. There was a factual dispute at trial as to whether the victim was “in condition to receive the information” within the meaning of section 316.062(2). It is true that the victim and appellant knew each other, and that appellant made sure that the victim was taken to the hospital, satisfying one of the main purposes of the statute. See State v. Dumas, 700 So. 2d 1223, 1225 (Fla.1997). However, another purpose of the statute is to ensure that an accident will “forthwith” be reported to the police so that it can promptly be investigated. There was evidence to support a finding that the victim was in no condition to receive any information. It is undisputed that no police officer was present at the scene of the accident and that appellant did not “forthwith” report the accident to “the nearest office of a duly authorized police authority.”
The rebuttal testimony of the trooper was cumulative to other evidence at trial and, if error, it was harmless.
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 845 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…court properly denied the motion for a judgment of acquittal. The evidence presented a question of fact for the jury as to whether the wording of the sign adequately identified the facility as a licensed childcare facility. Compare McGuire v. State, 738 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(holding that trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of leaving the scene of an accident because there was a factual dispute as to whether the victim in the accident was “in con…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Dumas, 700 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1997)