Dorsett v. State
147 So. 3d 532
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant convicted of leaving the scene of a crash involving injury under Fla. Stat. § 316.027(1)(a) (2006).
- Trial court denied the defense’s two requested special jury instructions; standard instruction 28.4 was given instead.
- Defense argued the law requires actual knowledge of the accident; argued Mancuso mandates knowledge of the accident or injury.
- Evidence showed multiple witnesses describing the collision; the defendant claimed he did not hear or know of the accident.
- Court acknowledged broad trial-court discretion for jury instructions but held error where standard instruction misstates law and the defense’s requested language was accurate and supported by evidence.
- Court reversed, remanded for new trial, and certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court about whether actual knowledge of the accident should be required in the standard instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to give the defendant’s special instructions was reversible error | State argues standard instruction accurately reflects Mancuso. | Defendant contends Mancuso requires knowledge of the accident and injury; requested instruction correctly stated law. | Remanded for new trial; error in not giving requested instruction acknowledged. |
| Whether actual knowledge of the accident is an essential element of § 316.027 | State contends knowledge of injury framework supports standard instruction. | Defendant asserts the accident knowledge is required; the requested instruction made this explicit. | Court certifies question to Supreme Court regarding requirement of actual knowledge of the accident. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mancuso v. State, 652 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1995) (knowledge of injury essential to 316.027; instruction should reflect injury knowledge)
- State v. Dumas, 700 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 1997) (knowledge element discussed in injury context, not accident)
- Perriman v. State, 781 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 1999) (standard jury instructions designed to be clear and accurate)
- Kearse v. State, 662 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1995) (trial court’s responsibility to provide proper instructions)
- Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747 (Fla. 2001) (failure to give standard instructions is not reversible per se; must show need and accuracy)