ROBERT STEPHENS
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.
Robert Stephens was convicted of manslaughter based on negligent operation of an automobile resulting in a fatal collision. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding insufficient evidence of criminal negligence where the jury had acquitted on the intoxication charge, which was essential to proving negligence.
The conviction is reversed and a new trial awarded because there is no substantial evidence of careless or negligent operation apart from the fact of collision, and the jury's acquittal on the intoxication charge eliminates the basis for finding criminal negligence.
“As we read the record, there is no substantial evidence tending to prove that the accused operated the automobile in any careless or negligent manner at the time and place of the collision. That a collision occurred tends to prove negligence on the part of someone, but the evidence falls short of being legally sufficient to fasten criminal negligence on the accused, unless he was at the time intoxicated, and of this he was determined by the jury to be not guilty.”
Core holding establishing that the collision alone does not prove negligence, and without the intoxication element, there is insufficient evidence of criminal negligence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 22, 1938, Stephens operated an automobile that collided with another vehicle at the intersection of Florida Avenue and Hiawatha Avenue in Tampa…
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 Criminal Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
We review on writ of error judgment of conviction of the crime of manslaughter alleged to have been committed by the accused in the negligent operation *164of an automobile on a public highway, ,a street in the City of Tampa.
There were two counts in the information. The first count charged:
“That Robert Stephens late of the County of Hillsborough aforesaid, in the State aforesaid, on the 22nd day of May in the year of Our Lord, one thousand nine hundred thirty-eight with force and arms at and in the County of- I-Iillsborough aforesaid, did unlawfully and feloniously drive and operate a motor vehicle, to-wit, an automobile, the same being a gasoline motor propelled vehicle, over a public street in the City of Tampa, State and county aforesaid, he, the said Robert Stephens being then and there, while so operating said automobile, intoxicated; and while so operating said automobile, he being then and there intoxicated, did unlawfully and feloniously drive, propel and operate the said automobile so as to collide with a certain other automobile on or near the intersection of Florida Avenue and Hiawatha Avenue in the City of Tampa, State and county aforesaid, and by colliding with said other automobile, did strike, wound and injure one Mary Elizabeth Templeton, and by thus striking the said Mary Elizabeth Templeton did inflict on and upon the head, body and limbs of the said Mary Elizabeth Templeton certain mortal wounds, from which mortal wounds she, the said Mary Elizabeth Templeton, did languish and die;”
The second count charged:
“That Robert Stephens, late of the county of Hillsborough aforesaid, in the State aforesaid, on the 22nd day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred thirty-eight, with force and arms at and in the county of Hillsborough aforesaid, did unlawfully, by and through his own act, procurement and culpable negligence operate a cer*165tain automobile, a further description of which is to the Solicitor unknown, in such negligent, careless and reckless manner as to cause it to collide with a certain other automobile on or near the intersection of Florida Avenue and Hiawatha Avenue, in the City of Tampa, State and county aforesaid, and by colliding with said other automobile did strike, wound and injure one Mary Elizabeth Templeton, and by thus striking the said Mary Elizabeth Templeton, did inflict on and upon the head, body and limbs of the said Mary Elizabeth Templeton certain mortal wounds, from which mortal wounds she the said Mary Elizabeth Templeton, did languish and die.”
lire evidence was conflicting as to whether or not the accused was “intoxicated at' the time of the collision” but the jury returned its verdict as follows:
“We, the jury, find the defendant, Robert Stephens, guilty as charged in the second count of the information. So say we all.”
This verdict exonerated the accused of the charge contained in the first count of the information.
As we read the record, there is no substantial evidence tending to prove that the accused operated the automobile in any careless or negligent manner at the time and place of the collision. That a collision occurred tends to prove negligence on the part of someone, but the evidence falls short of being legally sufficient to fasten criminal negligence on the accused, unless he was at the time intoxicated, and of this he was determined by the jury to be not guilty.
“Where, because of the inclusive character of evidence of the crime of which the defendant was convicted, it appears that the ends of justice will be best subserved by a new trial, the judgment will .be reversed and a new trial awarded. Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 So. 716.”
*166See also Moody v. State, 76 Fla. 23, 79 Sou. 294; Crawford v. State, 85 Fla. 498, 96 Sou 837; Pollard v. State, 61 Fla. 44, 55 Sou. 380, and Howell v. State, 102 Fla. 612, 139 Sou. 187.
Because of the inconclusive character and weight of the evidence, we hold that the ends of justice demand a reversal of the judgment and .remand of the cause for new trial.
So ordered.
Reversed.
Terrell, C. J., and Thomas, J., concur.
Wi-htfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment. •
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lowe v. State, 154 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1944)…lusiveness of the testimony offered to establish the essential facts necessary to constitue the crime, then, and under these conditions and circumstances, it becomes the duty of this Court to reverse the cause for a new trial. See Stephens v. State, 140 Fla. 163, 191 So. 294; Reed v. State, 137 Fla. 768, 189 So. 21; Skiff v. State, 107 Fla. 90, 144 So. 323; Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 So. 565; Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 973, 110 So. 528; Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 So. 618; Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253,…
-
Earnest Leon Jackson v. State, 100 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…the cause remanded. O’CONNELL, STEPHEN C., A. J., concurs. STURGIS, C. J., dissenting. . Cannon v. State, 91 Ma. 214, 107 So. 360, 363. . Hunt v. State, Fla.1956, 87 So. 2d 584; Franklin v. State, 120 Fla. 686, 163 So. 55. . Stephens v. State, 140 Fla. 163, 191 So. 294. . Williams v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 66. .See Miller v. State, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 312, 314, wherein the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Drew, stated: “Decisions arising under our guest statute must necessarily be rel…1 / 2
-
Peel v. State, 291 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…reckless indifference to the rights of others, which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them.’ Savage v. State, 152 Fla. 367, 11 So. 2d 778, 779.” The Supreme Court in Preston went on to quote the following passage from Stephens v. State, 140 Fla. 163, 191 So. 294, 295: “That a collision occurred tends to prove negligence on the part of someone, but the evidence falls short of being legally sufficient to fasten criminal negligence on the accused, unless he was at the time intoxicated, and of thi…
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
- Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1923)
- Howell v. State, 102 Fla. 612 (Fla. 1931)
- Rye Moody and Hamp Herring v. State, 76 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1918)
- Pollard v. State, 61 Fla. 44 (Fla. 1911)
- Crawford v. State, 85 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1923)