JOHN TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; WILLIAM JOHNSON, 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.
Taylor and Johnson were jointly convicted of manslaughter after their truck struck a car, killing the driver. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that both men could be equally culpable where the vehicle owner knowingly allowed an intoxicated person to drive the dangerous instrumentality.
Both appellants were properly convicted of manslaughter. The conduct of multiple people in handling a dangerous instrumentality like an automobile may make them equally guilty of manslaughter, particularly where the vehicle owner knowingly places it in the control of a careless and reckless driver knowing of his intoxicated condition.
“the conduct of two or more people in the handling of an automobile or other dangerous instrumentality may be such as make them equally guilty of manslaughter.”
Establishes the core principle that multiple parties can share equal culpability in manslaughter involving dangerous instrumentalities.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor and Johnson were riding in a truck owned by Johnson's brother and under Johnson's custody and control. The truck collided with a car, resulting…
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 Accomplice Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
Appellants Taylor and Johnson were jointly indicted and tried on a charge of manslaughter, both were found-guilty, and have appealed from the judgments of conviction. The facts are, briefly, as follows: Taylor and Johnson were riding in a truck owned by Johnson’s brother and in Johnson’s custody and control. They ran into a car in which the decedent was riding, resulting in her death. Both denied having been the driver of the car at the time of the accident. The indictment charged, in one count, that Taylor drove the car in a culpably negligent manner, while intoxicated, and that Johnson was present and aided and assisted Taylor in so doing; and in a second count, the roles of the appellants were reversed. As noted, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to both defendants.
We find no error here. The evidence was ample to support a finding by the jury that both Taylor and Johnson were drunk, that Taylor was the driver of the car, and that Johnson (who had custody and control of the car) turned it over to Taylor to drive, knowing of his intoxicated condition. This court said, in Peterson v. State, 128 Fla. 717, 175 So. 519, that “* * * the conduct of two or more people in the handling of an automobile or other dangerous instrumentality may be such as make them equally guilty of manslaughter.” And we quote with approval the remarks of the court in Story v. United States, 57 App.D.C. 3, 16 F. 2d 342, 344, 53 A.L.R. 246, 249, as follows:
“If the owner of a dangerous instrumentality like an automobile knowingly puts that instrumentality in the immediate control of a careless and reckless driver, sits by his side, and permits him without protest so recklessly and negligently to operate the car as to cause the death of another, he is as much responsible as the man at the wheel.”
We think the circumstances here were such as to make both Johnson and Taylor guilty of manslaughter. As stated in the Story case, supra, where the facts were very similar to those in the case at bar, “If a jury may not find criminal carelessness from such conduct, it is difficult to perceive what conduct would justify such a finding.”
We have examined the other questions presented by the appellants, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgments appealed from should be and they are hereby
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State, 959 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…duct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury,” Fla. Std. Jury Inste. (Crim.) 7.7, thus satisfying the elements of manslaughter by culpable negligence. See Taylor v. State, 83 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1955); Michelson v. State, 927 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Davison v. State, 688 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), review denied, 697 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1997); Werhan v. State, 673 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Kornegay v. State, 520 So. 2d 68…
-
Wilcox v. State, 171 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1965)…ec. 54, p. 196. In automobile death cases, the death is constructively that of the accused where he, as the owner of the car, turns it over to an intoxicated person to drive, knowing of the intoxication of the driver, see Taylor v. State, Fla. 1955, 83 So. 2d 879; or turns it over to another and sits by his side while the driver operates the car in a culpably negligent manner, see Story v. United States, 57 App.D.C. 3, 16 F. 2d 342, 53 A.L.R. 246, quoted with approval in the Taylor case, supra. But we have f…
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
- Story v. United States, 16 F.2d 342 (D.C. Cir. 1926)
- Peterson v. State, 128 Fla. 717 (Fla. 1937)