LUCILLE MCKISSACK, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Lucille McKissack was convicted of culpable negligence resulting in death after her car struck a person. She appealed the admission of a blood test showing .23% alcohol content, arguing it was inadmissible under the accident report privilege. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the objection at trial was sufficiently broad and any error harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt.
The blood test was admissible because appellant's trial objection was sufficiently broad to preserve the accident report privilege issue on appeal, and any error was harmless given the overwhelming competent evidence supporting the conviction.
[1] An objection to the admissibility of evidence, if sufficiently broad when read in context, may preserve an issue for appeal even if the specific grounds for the objection…
[2] A blood test taken in furtherance of an accident investigation may be admissible in a subsequent criminal trial if the accident report privilege does not apply or if the…
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“the car driven by the appellant traveled at a rapid rate of speed, was swerving, and eventually swerved sharply into a group of persons sitting on the grass, striking one person who later died”
Establishes the key facts demonstrating culpable negligence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was driving a car that traveled at rapid speed, was swerving, and sharply swerved into a group of people sitting on grass, striking one pers…
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 Accident Report Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged in a two count information with manslaughter. The first count charged her with culpable negligence in violation of § 782.07 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Count two charged her with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated resulting in death in violation of § 860.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
In a non-jury trial, appellant was found guilty of culpable negligence in violation of § 782.07 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The court granted appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as to count two.
Several witnesses testified that the car driven by the appellant traveled at a rapid rate of speed, was swerving, and eventually swerved sharply into a group of persons sitting on the grass, striking one person who later died. Appellant testified that the passenger grabbed the steering wheel, causing her to lose control of the car.
At issue is the admissibility of a blood test for alcohol. Appellant contends that a blood test which is taken in furtherance of an accident investigation is not admissible in a subsequent criminal trial, under the accident report privilege of § 317.171, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
A detective of the Dade County Public Safety Department secured the blood test from the appellant with her consent at Jackson Memorial Hospital, but no warnings were given as to her rights in case of criminal charges. There was no intimation that she would be charged with manslaughter. The reading from the test showed an alcoholic content of .23% and the detective testified she was under the influence of alcohol.
At the outset we must consider whether the point on appeal is properly before us. Defense counsel objected vigorously to the introduction of the blood test results, but on grounds different from those now on appeal. Defense counsel did assert:
“I object to the reading and admissibility of the blood contents for the express reason [that] the implied consent law was a specific law for surrender of your *16driver’s license and in the absence of any kind of warning to this defendant that this could be used against her in any other type of case other than that. There was no warning given. The officer was in charge of giving a blood test. The purpose of the test was specifically to get evidence against her and she- was not warned or told of that.”
We believe that such objection when read in context was sufficiently broad to include an objection based upon the accident report privilege.
We note that defendant made no showing whatsoever that any information obtained was used in the accident report. Moreover, there was such an overwhelming amount of sufficient competent evidence to sustain the finding of the judge, sitting as the finder of the facts, that the error, if any, was “harmless.” See generally: State v. Coffey, Fla.1968, 212 So.2d 632; § 59.041, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; but cf. Shores v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 434.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and sentence appealed from are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pollock v. Reserve Ins. Co., 258 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ay the damages resulting from the negligence of the uninsured motorist and that the company had refused. The related case dealing with the criminal prosecution of one of the defendants here was before this court in McKissack v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 14. The defendant insurance company moved to dismiss, or to compel arbitration pursuant to a provision of the insurance policy. The court ordered arbitration and also dismissed the complaint, without prejudice. Plaintiff petitioned for rehearing and i…
-
Adams v. State, 448 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…reparing accident report); cf. Barrentine v. Makely, 406 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (results admissible where officer affirmatively testified that neither the blood test nor its results were necessary to his accident report); McKissack v. State, 243 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (evidence of blood test admissible where defendant made no showing that any information obtained was used in accident report). See generally State v. Edge, 397 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1981) (co…
-
Fernandez v. State, 370 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…n if the report should be determined to have been inadmissible, we would hold that such an error was harmless in the present instance where there was no prejudice to the appellant and there was overwhelming evidence of guilt. Cf. McKissack v. State, 243 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The other points presented by the appellant have been examined in the light of the briefs and oral argument and have been found not to present reversible error. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Coffey, 212 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1968)
- Young v. Wakulla Cnty. Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 233 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)