JAMES E. HYMAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
James Hyman was convicted of manslaughter through culpable negligence in the operation of an automobile resulting in death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of evidence regarding both identity and culpable negligence, and addressing evidentiary questions about prior drunk driving convictions.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that Hyman was the driver, and that ample evidence demonstrated culpable negligence in the operation of the vehicle.
“While the evidence of defendant's identity, as the driver of the car, is largely circumstantial, we are satisfied that the jury was justified in its conclusion.”
The court's holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove Hyman was the driver, rejecting his challenge to the sufficiency of evidence on this issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHyman's car collided with a motorcycle in the opposite lane, killing the motorcycle rider. Hyman claimed he had been too intoxicated to drive and had …
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 Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of manslaughter. The crime is alleged to have been committed by the culpable negligent operation of an automobile.
' The State’s case showed that defendant’s car was meeting a motorcycle upon which deceased was riding and the car turned into the left lane of traffic and collided with the motorcycle causing the death of the rider of the motorcycle.
*447The conviction is challenged because the evidence is insufficient to prove, first, that defendant was the driver of the car and second, that the driver of the car was guilty of culpable negligence.
While the evidence of defendant’s identity, as the driver of the car, is largely circumstantial, we are satisfied that the jury was justified in its conclusion. See Bivens v. State, 69 Fla. 591, 68 So. 757; McLaren v. State, 137 Fla. 783, 188 So. 574; Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540, 4 So. (2nd) 691.
There was ample evidence to show that defendant was guilty of culpable negligence in the operation of his car. The defendant took the stand and testified that he had several drinks before the accident and considered himself too intoxicated to drive and secured one Anderson to drive; and that. Anderson was driving when the fatal collision occurred.
The jury had ample evidence that defendant, not Anderson, was driving. Defendant says he does not know about the collision; the first he remembers about it was some time afterward when an officer found him at the rear of the wrecked car. Defendant admitted he had fallen asleep before the collision. Virtually his whole defense then turns on whether he was the driver of the car.
It is urged that there was reversible error in the cross examination of defendant relative to previous convictions of driving while drunk. This line of questions started with a proper question by the State, i.e., “Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense, Mr. Hyman?” To which the defendant invitingly replied by asking, “What do you term a criminal offense?” Thereupon the next question was, “Driving while drunk?” Defendant answered in the affirmative and then the matter was pursued at length and in detail revealing three such convictions and only recently had defendant had his driving license restored. All of this examination was made without objection or timely motion to strike.
We also have before us a request to supplement the record to show alleged improper argument of the state attorney. We have duly considered the suggestion with other questions *448argued and find no reversible error in the record and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 75 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1954)…dense fog and the defendant could see only 30 feet ahead yet he drove to the left of the highway and struck deceased’s oncoming truck and then traveled 100 feet before coming to a stop, wrecking the truck and killing four persons. In Hyman v. State, 152 Fla. 446, 12 So. 2d 437, there was evidence that defendant was drunk at the time he turned left into the path of deceased coming from the opposite direction on a motorcycle. In Johnson v. State, 148 Fla. 510, 4 So. 2d 671, the defendant had gone thirty hours…
-
Solomon v. State, 145 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…were evidentiary conflicts, there was direct evidence of defendant’s possession of the subject property and we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the jury was within its prerogative. See Grizzard v. State, supra; Hyman v. State, 1943, 152 Fla. 446, 12 So. 2d 437. It is submitted that the- trial court erred in charging the jury that a larcenous intent could be inferred from recent exclusive possession by the defendant. We have examined the entire instruction and find it to be a standard and p…
-
Doyle Lewis Flint v. State, 117 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)…dense fog and the defendant could see only 30 feet ahead yet he drove to the left of the highway and struck deceased’s oncoming truck and then traveled 100 feet before coming to a stop, wrecking the truck and killing four persons. In Hyman v. State, 152 Fla. 446, 12 So. 2d 437, there was evidence that defendant was drunk at the time he turned left into the path of deceased coming from the opposite direction on a motorcycle. In Johnson v. State, 148 Fla. 510, 4 So. 2d 671, the defendant had gone thirty hours…
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
- Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540 (Fla. 1941)
- Frizell McLaren v. State, 137 Fla. 783 (Fla. 1939)
- Bivins v. State, 69 Fla. 591 (Fla. 1915)