Goodman v. State

• Decision Date: 26 July 2017
• Docket Number: No. 4D14–4479,4D14–4479
• Citation: 229 So.3d 366
• Parties: John GOODMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

229 So.3d 366

John GOODMAN, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D14–4479

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 26, 2017

[Rehearing Denied October 25, 2017]

Margaret Good–Earnest and Cherry Grant of Good–Earnest Law, P.A., Lake Worth, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Warner, J.

In his appeal of his conviction and sentence for DUI manslaughter with failure to render aid, and vehicular homicide with failure to render aid, appellant raises thirteen issues. We affirm as to all and write to address three issues. First, appellant contends that the State prematurely released his vehicle after his first trial, thus violating his due process rights and requiring dismissal under California v. Trombetta , 467 U.S. 479, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). We disagree, concluding that because of the prior testing on the vehicle and the State's agreement not to introduce certain testing by its expert, the vehicle was not "constitutionally material" and any potential prejudice was eliminated. Second, he contends that the jury instructions on the failure to render aid enhancements violated due process by failing to require that appellant knew that the accident resulted in injury or death. The statutes, however, merely require that the person "knew or should have known of the crash," not the injury. The instructions read to the jury went beyond this and required that appellant "knew" of the crash. We therefore reject appellant's challenge to the jury instructions. Third, appellant claims that his blood was drawn without a warrant, violating the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure clause. However, the exigent circumstances exception applies, and the failure to obtain a warrant was not error. As to the sentence for the vehicular homicide conviction, which the court held in abeyance, we reverse on double jeopardy grounds.

Following a late-night two-vehicle accident, in which the other driver died after his vehicle was submerged in a canal, appellant was charged with DUI manslaughter with failure to render aid (Count 1) and vehicular homicide with failure to render aid (Count 2). Appellant was convicted and sentenced following his first trial. After juror misconduct came to light, see DeMartin v. State , 188 So.3d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), appellant's first conviction was vacated and he was granted a new trial.

Prior to his second trial, appellant moved to dismiss the charges against him after he discovered that the State had prematurely released the two vehicles involved in the crash. One of the vehicles, a Bentley driven by appellant, was eventually found in Texas, having been repaired and refurbished. Appellant argued that the Bentley was materially exculpatory based on his allegation that an issue with the throttle led to a brake malfunction. He admitted that the malfunction had been extensively discussed during his first trial, including codes from the Bentley's electronic control module ("ECM") indicating a throttle malfunction. However, appellant argued that his automotive engineer expert was not allowed to conduct the same physical manipulative inspections of the Bentley's throttle as the State's expert. Following a hearing, the court denied the motion to dismiss, determining that "the Bentley did not rise to the level of materially exculpatory evidence and instead was only potentially useful evidence[.]" Therefore dismissal was "too harsh a sanction in the absence of bad faith on the part of the State." As the State agreed not to call its expert, "there remains no prejudice to Defendant in his ability to present the expert testimony and findings he has collected."

Appellant also sought to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test, arguing that the test constituted a warrantless search in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The court held a hearing, during which the testimony indicated that the crash occurred around 1:00 a.m., but appellant left the scene and called 911 about an hour later. He returned to the scene shortly after 2:00 a.m. At 2:26 a.m., he was transported to the hospital. At 2:31 a.m., the victim's body was discovered. The homicide investigator was called and arrived at the crash site at 3:18 a.m. At 3:33 a.m., the investigator met appellant at the hospital, where he observed signs of intoxication. After appellant refused a voluntary blood draw, a forced blood draw was conducted at 4:00 a.m. The investigator testified that it would have taken two-and-a-half hours that night to obtain a warrant. On these facts, the court denied the motion to suppress the blood test results, finding that the exigent circumstances exception applied.

At the second trial, the evidence showed that appellant ran a stop sign without braking and "t-boned" the victim. Appellant was going sixty-three miles per hour in a thirty-five miles per hour zone. The force of the impact pushed the victim's Hyundai through the intersection and into a nearby canal, where it came to rest upside down. Appellant did not remain on the scene or assist the victim, who ultimately drowned. The victim did not sustain fatal injuries in the collision itself. Earlier in the evening, appellant had consumed alcohol at several venues, the amount of which was a contested issue at trial.

After the accident, appellant quickly left the scene on foot. He resurfaced a half hour later at a woman's trailer, seeking a phone. He used the woman's phone to call his girlfriend. The woman testified that appellant acted slow and "out of it." He was mumbling and repeating himself, and told her that he was in a really bad accident and hoped no one was hurt. He admitted he had a few drinks. After appellant spoke with his girlfriend, he asked the woman what to do. When she suggested he call 911, appellant asked whether he should call his lawyer first and turn himself in. Appellant never mentioned stopping elsewhere between the crash and arriving at her trailer.

Appellant called 911 at 1:56 a.m. He told the 911 operator that he stopped at a stop sign, looked, did not see anything, pulled out, and hit something. He did not say his car malfunctioned. He said he walked down the road to a barn, hopped over the gate, and came to the woman's house to get a phone.

A deputy picked up appellant to bring him back to the crash site. When the deputy asked appellant if he was injured, he only mentioned pain in his wrist. He claimed that he stopped at the stop sign, went through the stop sign, hit something, was unaware of what he hit, and left to make a phone call. Appellant was emanating the odor of alcohol and his speech was slurred. Upon returning to the crash site, the deputy escorted appellant to paramedics.

The paramedics who treated appellant at the scene also noted that his speech was a little slurred and he smelled of alcohol. He did not, however, appear to have consumed a large amount of alcohol within the hour prior. Appellant was not dizzy, his head did not hurt, and he denied losing consciousness. Once at the hospital, appellant was alert and did not complain of head pain, dizziness, or nausea. The doctor's notes indicated that he denied losing consciousness.

Appellant refused a blood test, but had blood drawn at 3:59 a.m., which revealed that his blood alcohol level was 0.177 and 0.178. A toxicologist calculated that appellant's blood alcohol level at the time of the crash was between 0.207 and 0.237, the equivalent of twelve to thirteen drinks.

Appellant's forensic engineer testified that the Bentley did not stop at the stop sign. He opined that the vehicle was going between forty-nine and fifty-eight miles per hour at the time of the crash.

Appellant's automotive engineer testified that he had inspected the Bentley prior to the first trial, before it was released. The ECM report registered a fault code at some point prior to the crash. The code indicated that the vehicle's two throttle valves were unsynchronized due to a mechanical malfunction. One of the two throttles in the vehicle was lagging behind the other, but the expert was unable to determine whether the lag was in engaging or releasing the accelerator pedal, and he was unable to determine how long the lag was. Regardless, the throttle issue did not affect the braking system, and, due to the vehicle's multiple override systems, upon applying the brakes, "[i]n a worst case scenario, the driver might feel a delay in response[.]" The expert speculated that there could have been some computer malfunction as well, but he had no data reflecting such. He had been unable to conduct certain tests because of the vehicle's release and refurbishment. He admitted he had previously testified during a deposition that further testing would not tell him anything beyond what he already knew based on the vehicle's diagnostic stored data.

The State's electrical engineer also inspected the Bentley after it was found in Texas and opined that the braking system functioned until damaged in the crash. The State's vehicle expert from the first trial did not testify at the second trial.

Appellant testified in his defense and claimed that he was not intoxicated at the time of the accident, but rather that the brakes on his Bentley malfunctioned when he attempted to stop at the stop sign. He said that he lost consciousness in the crash. After he awoke, he looked around the crash site, which was very dark, but did not see any vehicles. He did not look in the canal. His phone wasn't working, so he decided to go look for a phone to call 911.

Significantly, appellant testified that after he left the crash site to find a phone, he came upon a "man cave" belonging to a member of the polo team he owned. The "man cave" did not have a telephone, but was stocked with liquor. Appellant testified that he drank an unknown quantity of alcohol from a bottle, then headed toward the woman's trailer. Appellant testified that he...