State v. Dorsett
Decision Date | 26 February 2015 |
Docket Number | No. SC13–310.,SC13–310. |
Citation | 158 So.3d 557 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Zachariah DORSETT, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL; Consiglia Terenzio, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Joseph Carney, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Jeanine Marie Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Petitioner.
Jeanette Anne Bellon of Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel, LLP, Miami, FL, for Respondent.
In this case, we answer a certified question regarding the knowledge element of Florida's hit-and-run statute, section 316.027, Florida Statutes (2006). We have for review, Dorsett v. State, 147 So.3d 532, 536–37 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 122 So.3d 869 (Fla.2013), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that in the prosecution of a driver for willfully leaving the scene of an accident involving an injury the statute requires the State to prove that the driver had “actual knowledge” of being involved in a crash. The district court certified to this Court the following question: “In a prosecution for violation of section 316.027, Florida Statutes (2006), should the standard jury instruction require actual knowledge of the crash?” 147 So.3d at 533 (emphasis in original). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. To answer the question, we begin by reviewing the facts of the case and then examine the statute and the cases construing it to determine whether a criminal conviction for violation of the hit-and-run statute requires proof of the driver's actual knowledge rather than mere constructive knowledge of being involved in a crash. For the reasons explained below, we answer the certified question in the affirmative.
Zachariah Dorsett was charged with leaving the scene of a crash resulting in an injury under this state's hit-and-run statute, a third degree felony under section 316.027(1), Florida Statutes (2006). The statute is set out fully in our subsequent discussion. In brief, however, the statute requires the driver involved in a vehicular crash to stop, provide assistance to anyone injured, and provide information to others and the authorities. The district court summarized the underlying facts presented at Dorsett's trial as follows:
Arguing that the hit-and-run statute requires proof that the driver had “actual knowledge” of involvement in a crash, Dorsett proposed a jury instruction that required the jury to find as an essential element that he “knew that he was involved in an accident.” Id. at 534 (emphasis omitted). The trial judge, however, denied the defendant's request and read the standard jury instruction, which provided that the State must prove the defendant “knew or should have known” that he was involved in a crash. Id. at 535 ; see Fla. Std. Jury Inst. (Crim.) 28.4. The jury found Dorsett guilty, and the trial court subsequently sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison for the third-degree felony.
On appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Dorsett again argued “that the standard jury instructions included an incorrect statement of law regarding section 316.027, Florida Statutes (2006), because the law requires actual knowledge of the accident. ” 147 So.3d at 534 (emphasis in original). Citing this Court's decision in State v. Mancuso, 652 So.2d 370 (Fla.1995), the district court concluded that proof of a defendant's actual knowledge of the accident is required and the jury should be so instructed. Dorsett, 147 So.3d at 536–37. As a result the Fourth District reversed and remanded the case for new trial but also certified the following question: “In a prosecution for violation of section 316.027, Florida Statutes (2006), should the standard jury instruction require actual knowledge of the crash?” 147 So.3d at 533 (emphasis in original).
Whether Florida's hit-and-run statute requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver had actual knowledge of being involved in a crash is a question of law that requires interpretation of section 316.027 to give effect to the Legislature's intent. “The interpretation of a statute is a purely legal matter and therefore subject to the de novo standard of review.” Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So.2d 1086, 1089 (Fla.2006). Accordingly, this Id. at 1091. However, when the language of a statute is unclear or ambiguous, we employ rules of statutory construction to discern that intent. Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803, 811 (Fla.2008).
The relevant portion of Florida's hit-and-run statute, subsection 316.027 provides as follows:
As the statute plainly states, compliance with the law requires “[t]he driver of any vehicle involved in a crash ... that results in injury of any person” to “immediately stop,” “remain at the scene,” and comply with section 316.062, which requires the driver to provide reasonable assistance to anyone injured and to provide identifying information as specified. § 316.027(1)(a).
Although section 316.027 does not expressly state that actual knowledge is required for a violation, the law does expressly provide that a felony criminal violation requires that the driver “willfully” violate the statute. For the reasons we explain, we conclude that a willful violation can be established only if the driver had actual knowledge that a crash occurred.
In Mancuso, 652 So.2d at 370, we addressed a related claim that section 316.027 contained a requirement of actual knowledge that an injury had occurred. In that case, the defendant was charged under section 316.027 with leaving the scene of an accident involving a personal injury or death. He “struck two young women walking on a dark stretch of Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County,” killing one and injuring the other. Id. Mancuso requested a jury instruction...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report 2018-09
...whether the State must prove the defendant knew, or should have known, of either the crash or the property damage.Compare State v. Dorsett, 158 So.3d 557 (Fla. 2015), andMancuso v. State, 652 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1995), dealing with § 316.027, Fla. Stat., which, unlike § 316.061, Fla. Stat., con......
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report 2017-05
...whether the State must prove the defendant knew, or should have known, of either the crash or the property damage. Compare State v. Dorsett, 158 So.3d 557 (Fla. 2015), and Mancuso v. State, 652 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1995), dealing with § 316.027, Fla. Stat., which, unlike § 316.061, Fla. Stat., c......
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2015–07, SC15–1867.
...1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).See Mancuso v. State, 652 So.2d 370 (Fla.1995), State v. Dumas, 700 So.2d 1223 (Fla.1997), and State v. Dorsett, 158 So.3d 557 (Fla.2015).This instruction was adopted in 1995 [665 So.2d 212] and amended in 2008 [973 So.2d 432], and 2015 [166 So.3d 131], and 2016.28.4......
-
Speak v. Whidden
...under Florida law, the felony of "leaving the scene of a crash resulting in injury" requires actual knowledge of the crash. 158 So. 3d 557, 560-62 (Fla. 2015). In other words, because the driver of the pickup truck did not know that he hit a person, no felony could be charged. 6. The SAO fo......