Hunt v. State
| Decision Date | 23 May 1956 |
| Citation | 87 So.2d 584 |
| Parties | William Leon HUNT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Roy Christopher, Mount Dora, and George T. Kelly, Orlando, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
In an information filed by the State Attorney of the Fifth Judicial Circuit the appellant was charged, in the first count, with having operated an automobile in such a negligent, careless and reckless manner as to kill one James Sheppard and, in the second count, with having killed Sheppard with the car while driving it when he was drunk.
The jury found the appellant guilty of the offense charged in the first count and not guilty of the offense charged in the second count.
He now insists that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of guilt and that the trial judge erred in his refusal to give the jury certain charges the appellant requested.
To determine the first question we will condense the testimony the jurors were privileged to believe. Sheppard was driving his truck north on a highway at the rate of 25 or 30 miles an hour and was accompanied by five persons. The appellant was driving west 'awful fast' on a road that met the highway at right angles and when he entered the highway, he evidently made no attempt to diminish his speed although a 'stop sign' stood on the road 30 feet from the intersection in plain view of the appellant, warning him that he was about to enter traffic that had the right-of-way. Furthermore, just before reaching the place where the road appellant was travelling joined the thoroughfare, appellant had passed a sign reading 'Reduce Speed Dangerous Intersection 200 Yards.' The appellant admitted that he was familiar with the road.
The cars collided 'almost head-on' to quote a trooper of the Florida Highway Patrol, who also said that the left side of appellant's car struck the left side of the truck, Sheppard's vehicle. For the Sheppard car to have been struck on the left side, as it moved north, by a car entering its path from the east the appellant must have swerved and after defining an arc struck the truck from the opposite direction. And the impact was so great that Sheppard was killed and several others were severely injured.
There was abundant evidence that the appellant had been imbibing intoxicating liquors, if indeed he was not drunk, and although he was acquitted on the charge containing that element, it was proper to consider his condition as shedding light on his recklessness. Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360; Young v. State, 142 Fla....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Filmon v. State
...Preston v. State, 56 So.2d 543 (Fla.1952); Smith v. State, 65 So.2d 303 (Fla.1953); Miller v. State, 75 So.2d 312 (Fla.1954); Hunt v. State, 87 So.2d 584 (Fla.1956); Johnson v. State, 92 So.2d 651 (Fla.1957); and Jackson v. State, 100 So.2d 839 (Fla.App.1st, The recent case of Peel v. State......
-
Shue v. Saul
...intentional violation of them. United States v. Chan-Gutierrez, 368 Fed. Appx. 536, 538 (5th Cir. March 2, 2010) (citing Hunt v. State, 87 So. 2d 584, 585 (Fla. 1956); Maxey v. State, 65 So. 2d 677, 678 (Fla. 1954); Walter v. State, 157 Fla. 684, 26 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1946); Brinkley v. State......
-
State v. Clayton
...in the death of another.' 7 Am.Jur.2d Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 338 (1963). Accord, Annot., 99 A.L.R. at 785--786. In Hunt v. State, 87 So.2d 584 (Fla.), the defendant was charged with manslaughter growing out of an automobile accident. Evidence that the defendant had been imbibing ......
-
Thomas v. State
...considered by the jury in determining the negligence of the defendant, State v. Chekmizoff, 82 Ariz. 176, 309 P.2d 796, 798; Hunt v. State, Fla., 87 So.2d 584, 585; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 128 A.2d 634, 638; Wallen v. State, Okl.Cr., 338 P.2d 170, 174; State v. McDaniels, 30 Wash.2d 76,......