JOSEPH RUDOLPH BLAIR, 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 Blair was convicted of manslaughter under Florida law for causing a death while operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. He appealed on seven grounds, but the appellate court affirmed his conviction and sentence of six months to ten years imprisonment.
The court affirmed the conviction on all grounds, finding that the information was sufficient, the evidence regarding the collision and its consequences was properly admitted, the prosecutor's comments did not constitute reversible error, the refusal to give requested instructions was proper, and the state adequately proved the vehicle was a motor vehicle without needing to specifically prove its fuel source.
“if the death of any human being shall be caused by the operation of a motor vehicle driven by a person while intoxicated, such person shall be guilty of manslaughter”
Sets forth the statutory definition of the crime for which Blair was convicted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlair was charged with manslaughter under § 860.01, Fla.Stat., which makes it manslaughter if death is caused by operation of a motor vehicle driven w…
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 Judicial Notice Of Common Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was adjudged guilty, after a jury trial, of the crime of manslaughter under § 860.01, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., which provides that if the death of any human being shall be caused by the operation of a motor vehicle driven by a person while intoxicated, such person shall be guilty of manslaughter. He appeals the judgment and the sentence of imprisonment at hard labor for a term of six months to ten years. We affirm.
There are seven points presented upon appeal. Only one of these points questions the sufficiency of the evidence and that point is directed to one element which it is ■claimed was omitted -from the proof.- That point will be discussed last. The remaining points urge: (1) the insufficiency of the information; (2) alleged errors in -rulings upon the-admissibility of evidence; .(3) refusal to grant a mistrial because of alleged. improper comments upon the evidence by the prosecuting attorney; (4) the refusal to give requested instructions.
Without discussing each point in order to explain how we find it unsubstantial, we will briefly indicate the basis of our conclusion in each instance.
The information is sufficient because it clearly set forth each element of the crime charged and fairly apprised the defendant of the charge. Drozewski v. State, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 329.
Under the point directed to the admission of evidence, the appellant urges that the jury should not have been allowed to know that persons other than the deceased were injured in the accident. Trials cannot be conducted in a vacuum. It was inevitable that in the testimony regarding the force and extent of the impact, other injuries would be revealed. We find no prejudicial error in the admission of the actual facts concerning the collision and its immediate results. State v. Green, 251 N.C. 40, 110 S.E.2d 609; Allen v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 612, 197 S.W.2d 1013.
The appellant does not contend that in any single instance an improper and prejudicial comment by the prosecuting attorney was such that he should have been granted a mistrial. Instead it is his contention that the overall conduct of the trial was such as to deprive him of a fair consideration of his innocence or guilt. We have reviewed all of the instances suggested and find that they do not singly or together constitute reversible error.
The point going to the refusal of the' court to give certain of defendant’s 'instructions does not present reversible .error under the rule stated in Austin v. State, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 896, 897.
Upon the point directed to the sufficiency of the evidence, it is urged that because the state failed to prove specifically that the car driven by the appellant was one *235propelled by “ * * * gasoline, gas, vapor, electricity, steam or other power * * * ” that the case was not proved because these words are included in the statute. Such a holding would not benefit the law or protect the innocent. The evidence showed that the vehicle driven by the appellant was a Cadillac automobile. We can rightly impute to the jury the knowledge of ordinary men that this is a gasoline driven motor vehicle.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. State, 368 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1978)…e reviewed the informations in this case and find that they are sufficient to inform the appellant of the nature of the offenses charged, Drozewski v. State, 84 So. 2d 329 (Fla.1955); Gray v. State, 58 Fla. 54, 50 So. 538 (1909); and Blair v. State, 161 So. 2d 233 (Fla.3d DCA 1964), and do not mislead or embarrass her in the preparation of her defense nor subject her to double jeopardy. Appellant’s third point raises a more difficult question. Can a defendant who pleads nolo contendere reserve for appeal a t…
-
State v. Barnett, 339 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…ed criminal conspiracy affecting two or more counties. Since proof of a multicounty connection is not an essential element of the crime it was not necessary for the indictment to contain allegations of the multicounty connection. See Blair v. State, 161 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Appellee argues that unless the state is required to allege or prove a multicounty connection he cannot discover whether the statewide grand jury’s investigation was within the scope of its jurisdiction. In fact that avenue of a…
-
Patterson v. State, 167 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…Farrior v. State, Fla.1954, 76 So. 2d 148, 151; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 412; on the authority of which we conclude the judgment appealed from should be and it hereby is reversed. Reversed. . Compare Blair v. State, Fla.App.1984, 161 So. 2d 233, where this court, in affirming a manslaughter conviction under § 860.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., held that proof of the propulsion power of an automobile as specified in that statute was not necessary hut could be inferred by a jury as a matter of common…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Drozewski v. State, 84 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1955)
- Austin v. State, 40 So.2d 896 (Fla. 1949)