JOSEPH MCBRIDE, 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.
Joseph McBride appeals his DUI manslaughter conviction after the Florida Supreme Court remanded the case due to changes in law regarding jury instructions on statutory presumptions of impairment. The District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, finding that the trial court's erroneous instruction was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of impairment.
Although the trial court's instruction on statutory presumptions of impairment was clear error under Townsend II, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not affect the verdict, so the conviction is affirmed.
[1] A jury instruction on statutory presumptions of impairment constitutes clear error when overturned by higher authority.
[2] An erroneous jury instruction is harmless if the verdict could not have been affected by the error beyond a reasonable doubt.
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“Error is harmless only 'if it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict could not have been affected by the error.'”
Establishes the legal standard the court applies to determine whether the erroneous jury instruction was harmless.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcBride drove his car at approximately 70 mph in a 35 mph zone, swerved in and out of lanes, nearly rear-ended a minivan, barely missed a bicyclist, a…
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 Statutory Presumptions Of Impairment cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
This case is before us on remand from the Florida Supreme Court. Joseph McBride challenges his conviction for DUI manslaughter, which arose out of an incident in which he drove his car into oncoming traffic and hit the victim’s car head on.
McBride originally argued before this court that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the statutory presumptions of impairment and erred in excluding evidence of the victim’s impairment. We affirmed McBride’s conviction, see McBride v. State, 774 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), based on our holding in State v. Townsend, 746 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), that the State is entitled to the legislatively created presumptions of impairment once the predicate established in Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla.1992), is laid. However, the supreme court has overturned in part this court’s decision in Townsend. See Townsend v. State, 774 So. 2d 693, 693 (Fla.2000) (Townsend II). Subsequently the court quashed our holding in the instant case, “only to the extent it is inconsistent with ... Townsend [II].” See McBride v. State, 788 So. 2d 962, 963 (Fla.2001).
Although pursuant to Townsend II it was clear error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the statutory presumptions of impairment, we conclude that the error was harmless and affirm McBride’s conviction. Error is harmless only “if it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict could not have been affected by the error.” State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986).
At trial, the State presented evidence from several witnesses that McBride drove at approximately 70 miles per hour in a 35 miles per hour zone, swerved in and out of lanes, had trouble maintaining a lane, nearly rear-ended a minivan, barely missed hitting a bicyclist, and swerved into oncoming traffic, where he hit the victim’s car head on. Additionally, testimony showed that McBride’s tires were screeching as he wove through traffic and that he cut so closely in front of other cars that the drivers were forced to slam on their brakes in order to avoid being hit by McBride’s vehicle. Furthermore, two of the paramedics that responded to the scene testified that while in the ambulance with McBride, they smelled alcohol on his breath, and a police officer testified that McBride said he had been drinking all day.
The Fifth District has concluded that, based upon certain facts, erroneously instructing the jury on the statutory presumptions is harmful error. See Bass v. State, 801 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Servis v. State, 802 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Hembree v. State, 790 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). However, due to the overwhelming evidence of McBride’s impairment presented by the State, we conclude that the error here was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm McBride’s conviction.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and COVINGTON,1 JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cardenas v. State, 867 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2004)…ine v. State, 811 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). I do not join in the majority opinion in respect to harmless error, which I conclude is dicta. I dissent from the majority’s partial disapproval of the Second District’s decision in McBride v. State, 816 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The reason that the majority’s discussion of the harmless error is dicta in Bo-nine is plain in that the majority opinion acknowledges, at page 24, that there was no objection to the instruction. In light of there being no objec…1 / 2
-
Searles v. State, 816 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…n on the statutory presumption of impairment can be harmless error when there is sufficient evidence of actual impairment such that there is no doubt that the jury would have found impairment even without the erroneous instruction. McBride v. State, 816 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we conclude that the giving of the presumption of impairment instruction was harmless. But see Bonine v. State, 811 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Servis v. State, 802 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Bass v. State,…
-
Tyee Martele Spike v. State, 251 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1992)
- Servis v. State, 802 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Townsend v. State, 774 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2000)
- Hembree v. State, 790 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Jack v. Bass, 801 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- McBRIDE v. State, 788 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 2001)