Cahours v. State
147 So. 3d 574
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant challenged his convictions for leaving the scene of a crash involving death and vehicular homicide.
- Court affirms on all issues except one: the standard jury instruction misstates the knowledge element for leaving the scene.
- Conviction for leaving the scene of a crash involving death is a first-degree felony under Fla. Stat. § 316.027(2011).
- Mancuso holds knowledge of an injury is an essential element that can be proven by actual knowledge of the injury or accident.
- The standard instruction uses “knew or should have known” rather than actual knowledge, which the court finds incorrect.
- The court certifies a question of great public importance and remands for a new trial on that count; also addresses vehicular homicide sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the standard instruction misstates knowledge | Mancuso requires actual knowledge; instruction uses knowledge or should have known | Instruction correctly reflects knowledge should be proven | Yes; instruction misstates law; requires actual knowledge |
| Whether evidence supports vehicular homicide | Evidence shows recklessness from intoxication and smoky conditions | Evidence insufficient or improperly analyzed | Evidence sufficient to sustain vehicular homicide |
| Whether to certify and remand on the knowledge issue | Issue should be decided by higher court; significant public importance | Issue should be clarified by standard jury instruction | Issue certified as of great public importance; remand for new trial on count |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mancuso, 652 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1995) (knowledge of the accident is an essential element of 316.027)
- Dorsett v. State, 147 So.3d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (actual knowledge of crash required; standard instruction misstates law)
- State v. Ynocenscio, 773 So.2d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (reckless driving on smoky/low-visibility conditions supports vehicular homicide)
- W.E.B. v. State, 553 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (alcohol consumption alone not enough to prove recklessness)
- State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1991) (fundamental error when an instruction misinforms on essential element)
- Gaulden v. State, 132 So.3d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (recognizes split on knowledge in hit-and-run statutes; not decisive due to concession)