Espinoza v. State, 65-518

Decision Date01 March 1966
Docket NumberNo. 65-518,65-518
PartiesRane Gilbert ESPINOZA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James J. McVeigh, Miami for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before TILLMAN PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

TILLMAN PEARSON, Judge.

Rane Gilbert Espinoza was a passenger in a car which struck and killed a bicyclist. The driver of the car did not stop. The driver was subsequently convicted and sentenced for the violation of section 317.071, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which is the statute requiring the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in an injury or death to immediately stop such vehicle at scene of the accident.

The defendant Espinoza was informed against for a violation of the same statute. It being alleged that Espinoza was 'willfully and knowingly aiding, abetting and assisting' the driver 'the said felony to do and commit, in violation of 317.071 and 776.011, Florida Statutes.'

The appellant's motions for directed verdict were denied, he was found guilty by a jury, adjudged guilty by the court, and sentenced. This appeal followed. We reverse upon a holding that the elements of the crime were not proved.

The State established that the deceased was struck by an automobile, driven by defendant Tower, in which Espinoza was a passenger. It was further established that at the time of the impact the automobile was going at a great rate of speed, and that immediately after the impact the automobile slowed down but did not stop. The appellant admitted to a police officer that he knew that the automobile struck something. The impact broke the windshield and damaged the automobile to some extent.

A witness established that a car with Tower and Espinoza as occupants was later stopped because of mechanical failure some 14 miles from the scene of the accident. This witness helped Tower and Espinoza push the car to try to get it started. When this was unsuccessful, the three men pushed the car to the side of the road, and the witness took Tower and Espinoza to Tower's home.

The question presented by this appeal is whether or not the defendant Espinoza, as a passenger in the car, can be found guilty without clear evidence establishing his knowledge of the occurrence of an accident causing injury. The language of the statute, section 317.071, is as follows:

'The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident * * *.'

It is apparent that proof of the defendant's, passenger's knowledge that an accident involving injury had occurred is an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Fox v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 1985
    ...and thus more is needed than a suspicion or belief that under the circumstances, he knew what was occurring. Espinoza v. State, 183 So.2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The mere fact that he fled from the scene after the crime 'does not exclude the reasonable inference that (he) had no knowledge o......
  • English v. United States, s. 09–CF–1025
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • July 14, 2011
    ...to stop or to render assistance to the injured person, the passenger may be liable as an aider and abettor. See Espinoza v. State, 183 So.2d 560, 561 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1966) (conviction reversed for insufficient evidence, but court stated that “[i]t is altogether possible that a passenger ma......
  • Gains v. State, s. AC-117
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 13, 1982
    ...and thus more is needed than a suspicion or belief that under the circumstances, he knew what was occurring. Espinoza v. State, 183 So.2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The mere fact that he fled from the scene after the crime "does not exclude the reasonable inference that (he) had no knowledge o......
  • Douglas v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 1968
    ...We think the following cases require reversal of Douglas' convictions: Gilday v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 205; Espinoza v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 560; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 446. The substantial holding of these cases is that before an accused may be convic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT