ARTHUR LEWIS CHIEVES, 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.
Arthur Chieves was convicted of manslaughter by culpable negligence after being acquitted of manslaughter while intoxicated. The appellate court reversed his conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the high degree of negligence (culpable negligence) required to sustain a manslaughter conviction.
The trial court erred in denying the motion for directed verdict. The evidence was insufficient to prove culpable negligence. While Chieves may have been guilty of ordinary negligence, culpable negligence requires a high degree of gross and flagrant negligence evincing reckless disregard for human life, which was not established by the evidence.
[1] Culpable negligence, required to sustain a manslaughter charge, must be of a gross and flagrant character, evincing reckless disregard of human life or the safety of pers…
[2] An entire want of care that would raise the presumption of indifference to consequences constitutes culpable negligence.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 'culpable negligence' required to sustain a manslaughter charge must be of 'gross and flagrant character, evincing reckless disregard of human life or the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects; or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of indifference to consequences; or such wantonness or recklessness or grossly careless disregard of safety and welfare of the public, or that reckless indifference to the rights of others, which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them.'”
Establishes the legal standard for culpable negligence as defined by the Florida Supreme Court, requiring a much higher degree of negligence than ordinary negligence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChieves was charged with two counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence and two counts of manslaughter while intoxicated. He was convicted on the c…
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 Indifference To Consequences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, charged by information with two counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence and two counts of manslaughter while intoxicated, was convicted of the former charges but acquitted of the latter. From that conviction and the resulting sentence this appeal is taken. The issue for our resolution is whether the trial court erred in failing to grant appellant’s motion for directed verdict of acquittal on the manslaughter by culpable negligence charges. Upon examination of the entire record, we find that said motion should have been granted.
Negligence, sometimes referred to as “ordinary negligence” for the purpose of distinguishing it from culpable negligence, is defined in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions as follows:
“Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Reasonable care is that degree of care which a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances. Negligence may consist either in doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like circumstances or in failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like circumstances.”
The term “culpable negligence” was defined by the Florida Supreme Court in Preston v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1952, 56 So. 2d 543 in this manner:
“The ‘culpable negligence’ required to sustain a manslaughter charge must be of ‘gross and flagrant character, evincing reckless disregard of human life or the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects; or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of indifference to consequences; or such wantonness or recklessness or grossly careless disregard of safety and welfare of the public, or that 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.” (Emphasis added)
From the above-quoted definition, it is readily apparent that culpable negligence is of much greater import than ordinary negligence. Culpable negligence will support a conviction for a crime. Ordinary negligence will not.
That the defendant had been drinking or was to some degree under the influence is not proof of culpable negligence. (Jackson v. State, Fla.App. 1st, 1958, 100 So. 2d 839; Peel v. State, Fla.App.1st, 1974, 291 So. 2d 226) As already recited, the jury acquitted appellant of the intoxication counts.
In that regard this case is. extremely similar to Peel v. State, supra, and in this case, as in Peel, we find from an examination of the record that while appellant may well have been guilty of negligence, the evidence is insufficient to prove that high degree of negligence required to sustain a conviction of manslaughter. Accordingly, appellant’s conviction of manslaughter by culpable negligence and the sentences imposed thereon are reversed, and appellant is ordered discharged.
Reversed with directions.
BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manuel v. State, 344 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…ossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or that reckless indifference to the rights of others, which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them. See Preston v. State, 56 So. 2d 543, 544 (Fla.1952); Chieves v. State, 328 So. 2d 264, 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Getsie v. State, 193 So. 2d 679, 681-82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). In the manslaughter area, one distinct line of cases involves accidental shootings in which manslaughter convictions were not upheld. As with the second degree m…
-
Davison v. State, 688 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…peal have aptly followed the supreme court’s directions concerning the relevance of evidence of alcohol consumption in prosecutions of manslaughter by culpable negligence. See Peel v. State, 291 So. 2d 226, 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Chieves v. State, 328 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert, denied, State v. Chieves, 336 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1976); Brown v. State, 511 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); R.C.G. v. State, 362 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Murray v. State, 329 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)(conviction reverse…
-
Tascano v. State, 363 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…keba v. State, 322 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1975); Lavatt v. State, 316 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1975); Dorminey v. State, 314 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1975); Winston v. State, 308 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1975); Golson v. State, 353 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1977); MacMainor v. State, 328 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1976); Dowis v. State, 326 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1976); Kelsey v. State, 317 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1975); Howard v. State, 316 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1975); Wheat v. State, 315 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1975); Rope…
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
- Savage v. State, 152 Fla. 367 (Fla. 1943)
- Earnest Leon Jackson v. State, 100 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Peel v. State, 291 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)