L. C. HAWKINS
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a manslaughter conviction against an 18-year-old Black boy after a fatal car collision. The court found the evidence insufficient to prove the defendant's culpable negligence caused the accident and death.
No, the State failed to prove the defendant's culpable negligence caused the fatal collision and the victim's death.
“The burden is on the State in such cases, where such driver is prosecuted for unlawful homicide, to prove culpable negligence and that such negligence resulted in the collision causing the death of the deceased.”
Establishes the State's burden of proof in cases of unlawful homicide resulting from a collision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, an 18-year-old Black male, was convicted of manslaughter following a car collision he was involved in. The collision resulted in the de…
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
In this case plaintiff in error, a- negro boy eighteen years of age, was convicted of the crime of manslaughter.
The record shows that there was a collision between the automobile driven by the plaintiff in error and one driven by an aged white man by the name of Perry. The Perry car was overturned; Perry was' injured and died.
It is impossible to tell from the record which, if either, of the drivers of the automobiles was most at fault. It is sufficient, however, for us to say that the evidence as disclosed by the record fails to establish any negligent conduct on the part of the plaintiff in error in the operation of the automobile which he was driving. The witnesses for the State testified unequivocally that he was driving the automobile slowly and carefully. There is no reasonable explanation in the record as to why the collision occurred. It is evident that the jury was influenced in returning the verdict of guilty other than proof of criminal negligence on the part of the accused.
The law casts no presumption of negligence on the driver of an automobile which is involved in collision with another automobile. The burden is on the State in such cases, where such driver is prosecuted for unlawful homicide, to prove culpable negligence and that such negligence resulted in the collision causing the death of the deceased. In this cas'e the State failed to meet this burden -and the judgment must be reversed.
It is so ordered.
Judgment reversed.
*907Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Savage v. State, 152 Fla. 367 (Fla. 1943)…he State in order to sustain a conviction under Section 7141 C.G.L., as to criminal liability. See Cannon v. State, supra; Austin v. State, 101 Fla. 990, 132 So. 491.” See Graives v. State, 127 Fla. 182, 172 So. 716; Hawkins v. State, 120 Fla. 905, 163 So. 133. It is a legal presumption that a person charged with crime is innocent and this presumption accompanies the accused throughout each step of the trial. The burden of proof under the law is cast on the State to adduce evidence to establish each mate…