TAYLOR MICHAEL EDWARDS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed Edwards' conviction for leaving the scene of a crash involving personal injury because the State failed to prove the injury resulted from a vehicle collision, as required by statute.
A crash under Florida's leaving-the-scene statute requires a vehicle to collide with another vehicle, person, or object, and the State's evidence must establish that the alleged injury resulted from such a collision.
[1] Under Florida Statute section 316.027, a 'crash' requires a vehicle to collide with another vehicle, person, or object, and the State must prove the alleged injury result…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“'any vehicle involved in a crash' means that vehicle must collide with another vehicle, person, or object”
Gaulden v. State, defining the statutory requirement for a crash under the leaving-the-scene statute
Taylor Edwards was convicted of leaving the scene of a crash involving personal injury. The State's evidence did not establish that a crash caused the…
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 Fundamental Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse Taylor Edwards' conviction for leaving the scene of a crash involving personal injury because the State's evidence was insufficient to establish that a crash caused the injury alleged in the information.1 See *1196Gaulden v. State , 195 So.3d 1123, 1128 (Fla. 2016) (holding that section 316.027's operative phrase " 'any vehicle involved in a crash' means that vehicle must collide with another vehicle, person, or object"); see also Daugherty v. State , 207 So.3d 980, 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (holding that crash that occurred when the victim, who was trying to climb in window of car, fell and collided with pavement, did not constitute crash under leaving scene of crash involving death statute). We affirm, without discussion, Edwards' other conviction.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.
EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., and ROGERS, S.G., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.A.T. v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2003)
- Gaulden v. State, 195 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 2016)
- Daugherty v. State, 207 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Edwards v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)