93 So. 3d 1156
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant was charged with manslaughter by impairment and manslaughter based on unlawful blood alcohol level.
- The trial court acquitted on manslaughter by impairment but convicted of the lesser-included misdemeanor driving under the influence.
- The state sought costs of prosecution totaling $28,162, including $12,360 for toxicology experts and $15,000 for other trial costs.
- The trial court allocated $12,360 for the toxicologist costs and $15,000 for other costs, and was intentionally vague about the allocation.
- Statutes provide that convicted persons pay costs of prosecution, but an acquitted/discharged defendant is not liable for costs, and the court must allocate costs to the conviction.
- Appellant appealed, arguing costs should be allocated to the DUI conviction; the appellate court reversed and remanded for proper allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May costs be allocated only to the conviction for which there was a guilt determination? | State contends costs are tied to each conviction; all costs related to the charged offenses should be recoverable. | Appellant argues only costs reasonably and necessarily related to the DUI conviction should be taxed. | Costs must be limited to the DUI conviction. |
| What is the proper standard to allocate costs when multiple counts exist with one acquitted? | State asserts broad discretion to determine costs; should recover as defined by statute for prosecuted offenses. | Appellant asserts costs must be reasonably related to the proved offense and not speculative. | Costs must be reasonably and necessarily related to the proven offense. |
| Should the trial court remand for a precise allocation of costs? | State seeks allocation of costs to the proven DUI offense, potentially including related expert costs. | Appellant argues for a recalculation demonstrating reasonable and necessary costs tied to DUI. | Remand to determine reasonable and necessary costs consistent with the DUI conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Palmer, 809 F.2d 1504 (11th Cir. 1987) (cannot tax costs for counts of which defendant is acquitted)
- Davis v. State, 42 So.3d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for costs; statutory framework)
- People v. Palomo, 272 P.3d 1106 (Colo.App.2011) (on remand, allocate costs related to prosecuted counts only)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 239 Pa.Super. 440, 361 A.2d 881 (Pa. Super. 1976) (remand to determine portion of costs tied to charged offenses)