KENT MURRAY, 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.
Kent Murray was convicted of manslaughter by culpable negligence in a motor vehicle collision that caused death. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court erred in instructing the jury on culpable negligence as a lesser included offense, since culpable negligence by definition excludes cases resulting in death.
The instruction on culpable negligence was erroneous because culpable negligence by statute contemplates personal injury not resulting in death, while manslaughter by culpable negligence contemplates injury resulting in death. Since the only distinguishing feature between the two offenses is whether death occurred, and death did occur here, culpable negligence cannot be a lesser included offense.
[1] Manslaughter by culpable negligence requires a death, while culpable negligence not resulting in death is a lesser offense.
[2] A misdemeanor offense is not a lesser included offense of a felony if the elements of the misdemeanor are not necessarily included within the elements of the felony.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Manslaughter by culpable negligence, a felony, contemplates personal injury resulting in death whereas culpable negligence, a misdemeanor, contemplates personal injury not resulting in death.”
Establishes the statutory distinction between the two offenses based on whether death occurred
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurray was charged with manslaughter arising from operating a motor vehicle in a negligent, careless, and reckless manner that caused a collision resu…
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 Manslaughter By Culpable Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
An information was filed charging appellant with manslaughter under former Section 782.07, F.S., arising out of his alleged “act, procurement or culpable negligence” in operating a motor vehicle in “such a negligent, careless and reckless manner” as to cause a collision resulting in injuries and death to another. In addition to instructing the jury on the crime of manslaughter by culpable negligence, the trial court also instructed the jury on culpable negligence under former Section 784.05, F.S., as a lesser included offense to manslaughter. The appellant contends that this was error and we agree.
Manslaughter by culpable negligence, a felony, contemplates personal injury resulting in death1 whereas culpable negligence, a misdemeanor, contemplates personal injury not resulting in death.2 Thus, the only distinguishing feature between the two statutorily defined offenses, besides punishment, is whether or not the victim died. See, for example, Kelly v. State, 281 So. 2d 594 (Fla.App. 4th 1973); Mills v. Cone Brothers Contracting Company, 265 So. 2d 739 (Fla.App. 2d 1972). In the instant case the act giving rise to appellant’s conviction for culpable negligence resulted in death.
In light of the foregoing it is apparent that the misdemeanor of culpable negligence (as formerly defined) was neither a necessarily included lesser offense (within the major offense of manslaughter) nor a lesser included offense by virtue of the pleadings and proof (because of the death of the victim). Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1968); Gilford v. State, 313 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1975).3 Therefore the instruction on culpable negligence, having no basis in law and in fact, was erroneous.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction based upon such erroneous instruction is void and set aside and the cause remanded to the trial court for such other proceedings as may be consistent herewith.4 Cf. Greene v. City of Gulfport, 103 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1958); Johnson v. State, 226 So. 2d 884 (Fla.App. 2d 1969); Causey v. State, 307 So. 2d 197 (Fla.App. 2d 1975).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WALDEN, C. J., MAGER, J., and TURNER, W. ROGERS, Associate Judge, concur. . Sec. 782.07, F.S.1973, provides: “The hill-ing of a human being by the act, procurement or culpable negligence of another, in cases where such killing shall not be justifiable or excusable homicide nor murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, shall be deemed manslaughter and shall constitute a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082, § 775.083, or § 775.084.”
. Sec. 784.05, F.S.1973, provides: “Whoever through culpable negligence, or a reckless disregard for the safety of others inflicts any personal injury or injuries upon another, not resulting in death, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082 or § 775.083.”
. The trial court could have instructed the jury on aggrevated assault but no request therefor or objection to its omission was made by appellant. McCullers v. State, 206 So. 2d 30 (Fla.App.4th 1968) ; Appell v. State, 250 So. 2d 318 (Fla.App.4th 1971).
. It is unnecessary to consider the other issues raised by the appellant in view of the conclusion reached herein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Fla. Bar re: Standard Jury Instructions Crim. Cases, 477 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1985)…pable negligence — 784.05(2) and culpable negligence —784.05(1) which appear as category (1) lesser included offenses to manslaughter. The double asterisk should read: “But see Smith v. State, 330 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), and Murray v. State, 328 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).” The committee believes the schedule to be correct but wishes to call attention to cases which could be construed as holding to the contrary. 10. Element 3 in trafficking in cocaine on page 230 should be changed so as to coinci…
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 543 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1989)…tt v. State, 517 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). ** See Scurry v. State, 521 So. 2d 1077 (Fla.1988). * But see Martin v. State, 342 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1977). ** But see Smith v. State, 330 So. 2d 256 [526] (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), and Murray v. State, 328 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). *** See Taylor v. State, 444 So. 2d 931 (Fla.1984). * But see Martin v. State, 342 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1977). * Provided that charged offense is a second degree felony under section 893.13(l)(a)l. * An instruction of simple…
-
The Fla. Bar re Standard Jury Instructions-Criminal, 508 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1987)…elivery is charged Bringing methaqualone into state — 893.13(l)(d) Possession of methaqualone— 893.13(l)(e) * But see Martin v. State, 342 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1977). ** But see Smith v. State, 330 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), and Murray v. State, 328 So. 2d 501 (Fla.4th DCA 1976). *** See Taylor v. State, 444 So. 2d 931 (Fla.1984). **** Rotenberry v. State, 468 So. 2d 971 (Fla.1985). ***** Provided that charged offense is a second degree felony under section 893.13(l)(a)l.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- Paulet v. Hickey, 206 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Gilford v. State, 313 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1975)
- Appell v. State, 250 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Johnson v. State, 226 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Causey v. State, 307 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Greene v. City OF Gulfport, 103 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1958)
- Mills v. Cone Bros. Contracting Co., 265 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Odessa Kelly v. State, 281 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)