GEORGE W. ROSIER, 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.
Appellant's conviction on five counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence arising from a single automobile collision was affirmed, with the court holding that separate sentences for crimes against multiple victims are permissible even when committed in a single transaction, but striking invalid parole conditions.
Separate sentences may be imposed for manslaughter by culpable negligence when the defendant's conduct causes death to multiple victims, even if the deaths result from a single automobile collision.
[1] Separate sentences for manslaughter by culpable negligence may be imposed for deaths of multiple victims in a single transaction when the defendant's conduct demonstrates…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“culpable indifference to the safety and number of his victims in this case, which was equivalent to an intentional violation of their safety”
Court's reasoning that appellant's conduct toward multiple victims justified separate sentences
Appellant was convicted of five counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence after an automobile collision that killed five victims. The trial court …
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 Single Transaction Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Appellant contends he may not be separately sentenced on five counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence because the five victims were killed in a single automobile collision, characterized by appellant as a single transaction. We cannot assent. We have upheld separate sentences for violent crimes consecutively directed against , two or more persons. Booth v. State, 332 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We have also upheld separate sentences for violent crimes simultaneously directed toward two or more persons. Robinson v. State, 323 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Assuming as appellant argues that the accused there intended that his offense affect two or more persons, the same may be said for appellant’s culpable indifference to the safety and number of his victims in this case, which was equivalent to an intentional violation of their safety. Cornell v. State, 159 Fla. 687, 32 So. 2d 610 (1947); Preston v. State, 56 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1952); Maxey v. State, 64 So. 2d 677 (Fla.1953).
The trial court erred, as the State concedes, in purporting to impose a driving prohibition as a condition of any future parole from the flat sentences imposed and purporting to require, alternatively, that a member of the parole commission then accompany appellant when he operates a vehicle “so that they will be in as much jeopardy as other innocent persons on the highways.”
The purported parole conditions are stricken from the sentences and, as so modified, the judgments are
AFFIRMED.
BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bautista v. State, 863 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2003)…ent for each death caused by a defendant’s criminal conduct. See, e.g., Lovette v. State, 636 So. 2d 1304, 1305-06 (Fla.1994) (affirming three first-degree murder convictions where codefendants killed three people during a robbery); Rosier v. State, 343 So. 2d 972, 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (permitting five counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence where five victims were killed in a single automobile crash). Homicides are punished based on the number of victims because the legislative purpose behind homici…
-
Wright v. State, 363 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…appellant’s violence toward Harvey [*619] produced his well-grounded apprehension and flight, immediately resulting in the pedestrian’s death. The evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction for manslaughter. See also Rosier v. State, 343 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Though the evidence was sufficient to convict, we find that the prosecutor improperly commented to the jury on appellant’s failure to testify. Appellant adduced no evidence, but relied on what she conceived to be weaknesses in…
-
Freeman v. State, 384 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Rozier v. State, 343 So. 2d 972 (Fla.1st DCA 1977). ANSTEAD, MOORE and HURLEY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Maxey v. State, 64 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1953)
- Robinson v. State, 323 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Booth v. State, 332 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Cornell v. State, 159 Fla. 687 (Fla. 1947)