State v. Ward, MM-79
| Decision Date | 12 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. MM-79,MM-79 |
| Citation | 374 So.2d 1128 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Willie James WARD, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
William N. DeCarlis, Gainesville, for appellee.
Appellee was charged with vehicular homicide resulting from a head-on collision that occurred April 17, 1978. He pled not guilty and later filed a motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4).
Appellee founded his motion on the deposition of a neurologist who had previously treated him for petit mal epilepsy. The neurologist, in response to a hypothetical question outlining the events leading up to the collision, stated the opinion that Ward was suffering a seizure at the time of the fatal incident.
The trial judge granted appellee's motion on the ground that there were no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts did not establish a prima facie case of guilt. Specifically, the judge stated in his order that the medical opinion not traversed by the state established a lack on appellee's part of the "conscious intent to drive a car in the fashion which would give rise to the wantonness required under our culpable negligence homocide (sic) Statutes . . . ."
We reverse, on two grounds. First, the "conscious intent" and "wantonness" the trial judge mentioned are descriptions derived from Filmon v. State, 336 So.2d 586 (Fla.1976), which case the judge cited in his order. Filmon, however, involved Section 782.07, Florida Statutes (1975), the manslaughter statute, whereas the information in the instant case charged Ward with violation of Section 782.071, the vehicular homicide statute. The latter statute defines the offense charged here as "the killing of a human being by the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another."
The Florida Supreme Court, in an opinion rendered after the order dismissing the charges against Ward, held that the legislature created a lesser included offense to a Section 782.07 manslaughter when it created Section 782.071, and that therefore the standard of proof for vehicular homicide is less than that for manslaughter. McCreary v. State, 371 So.2d 1024 (Fla.1979). Most important for our purposes is the court's discussion, at 1026, of the conduct required for liability under each of the statutes:
The legislature did not intend the word "reckless" used in the vehicular homicide statute to mean the same thing as the word "culpable" used in the manslaughter statute. Had the legislature intended that vehicular homicide and manslaughter be the same offense with the same standard of proof and only that there be a reduced penalty for the former, then it simply could have provided that vehicular homicide is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nettles v. State
...Venice Corp. v. Caspersen, 229 So.2d 652 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1969); Trolinger v. State, 300 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1974); State v. Ward, 374 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The court has discretion to accept or reject the opinion of an expert even though it is uncontroverted. Robertson v. Robert......
-
State v. Beel, 4448-III-3
...Washington case has so held, applying the Ohio analysis, negligent homicide is under the facts of this case. See also State v. Ward, 374 So.2d 1128 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979) (vehicular homicide is lesser included offense of manslaughter). Since a car can be an instrument likely to produce bodi......
-
Cronin v. State, 84-1619
...A jury is free to weigh an expert's testimony, and may reject it. Sands v. State, 403 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Ward, 374 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Nevertheless, once such testimony is adduced, the jury should be instructed on what to do with it. Here, the jury was not s......
-
W.E.B. v. State, 89-1041
...embarked upon by the actor with the realization that it probably will cause injury to another." 451 So.2d at 503); and State v. Ward, 374 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (in dicta, court noting that it would be possible for jury to find defendant to have been reckless for operating a vehicle......