Santisteban v. State
72 So. 3d 187
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant was convicted of four counts of vehicular homicide arising from a February 11, 2005 tanker crash that killed four people on I-595 to Turnpike.
- Tanker carried over 9,000 gallons of fuel; appellant allegedly drove around a curved ramp at excessive speed, causing loss of control and explosion.
- Witnesses described the tanker veering, cutting off another vehicle, and resulting fire that engulfed the white Mercury with four victims inside.
- The state presented an accident reconstruction expert attributing the crash to excessive speed (56–60 mph) in a 35 mph advisory zone, while defense contested the speed and causation.
- At sentencing, the court downward departed by one year; the judge later relied on religious concepts in calculating the downward departure, prompting the appeal and remand for resentencing before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the trial judge properly disqualified? | Appellant argues judge should recuse due to related civil case. | Streitfeld properly refused; motion legally insufficient. | No reversal; denial affirmed; issue legally insufficient. |
| Was evidence sufficient to convict for criminal negligence? | Speed alone cannot show recklessness; state must prove more than excess speed. | Evidence showed willful or reckless disregard given tanker size and conditions. | Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction; no acquittal error. |
| Is the verdict against the weight of the evidence? | Verdict contradicted the weight of the evidence. | Appellate reversal for weight not permitted; focus on sufficiency. | Issue rejected; appellate review limited to legal sufficiency. |
| Did the trial court err in the extent of the downward departure? | Court relied on permissible grounds; should grant greater departure. | Relied on impermissible religious considerations; departure length should be adjusted. | Court erred by using constitutionally impermissible factors; vacate sentence and remand for resentencing before a different judge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. State, 976 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (de novo review of disqualification rulings)
- Foy v. State, 818 So.2d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (objective standard for fear of bias)
- Mansfield v. State, 911 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (past adverse rulings are not alone disqualifying)
- Chamberlain v. State, 881 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (prior exposure to evidence not by itself disqualifying)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (de novo review of sufficiency; rational juror view)
- Nawaz v. State, 28 So.3d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (impermissible factor in sentencing requires remand)
- State v. Del Rio, 854 So.2d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reckless driving elements referenced in vehicular homicide)
- Toliver v. State, 953 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (weight-of-evidence critique limited to sufficiency review)