Gaulden v. State, 132 So. 3d 916

Gaulden appeals conviction for leaving the scene of a crash involving death under 316.027(1)(l)(b) Florida Statutes (2010).
A passenger separated from Gaulden’s moving pickup, landed on pavement, and died; Gaulden did not stop or fulfill 316.062 duties.
Trial court dismissed the charge initially; another panel held the truck’s involvement in a crash, remanding for trial.
On remand, Gaulden was found guilty after a jury trial; he contends the jury instruction allowed conviction without actual knowledge of the crash.
Court rejects the argument, adopts the knowledge-or-should-have-known standard, affirms conviction, and certifies a question of great public importance about whether a vehicle is “involved in a crash” when no contact occurs between vehicle and passenger after exit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether knowledge of the crash requires actual knowledge	Gaulden argues actual knowledge is required	State relies on standard instruction that one must know or should have known of involvement in a crash	No fundamental error; standard instruction correct under Dumas and Mancuso
Whether a passenger’s separation with no contact makes the vehicle involved in a crash	Gaulden asserts no crash occurred without vehicle contact	State contends the vehicle can be involved based on collision causation by vehicle movement	Question certified; court declines to revisit Gaulden I and affirms conviction on existing record

Dumas v. State, 700 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 1997) (knowledge of death not required; same duty with different sanctions)
Mancuso v. State, 652 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1995) (knowledge to trigger duty; standard instruction approved)
Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (remand/disposition guidance for point of law decisions on remand)
Gaulden I, 134 So.3d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (statute interprets ‘crash’ to include fatalities; law of the case applies)