State of Florida v. Zachariah Dorsett
158 So. 3d 557
| Fla. | 2015Background
- Florida Supreme Court answers certified question on knowledge element of hit-and-run statute 316.027(2006).
- Dorsett charged with leaving the scene of a crash involving injury, a third-degree felony under 316.027(1).
- Evidence showed victim dragged; defendant claimed no knowledge of hitting anyone.
- Fourth District held that proof of actual knowledge is required and certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court.
- Court analyzes statute 316.027 and Mancuso to determine whether actual knowledge is required for a willful violation.
- Court concludes the State must prove actual knowledge of the crash as an essential element of the crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether actual knowledge of the crash is required | State argued knowledge need not be actual | Dorsett argued must prove actual knowledge | Actual knowledge required |
| Whether Mancuso controls jury instruction on knowledge | Mancuso supports knowledge element | (N/A) | Yes, Mancuso supports requiring actual knowledge |
| Whether standard jury instruction correctly describes the law | Standard instruction may misstate law | (N/A) | Standard instruction must reflect actual knowledge requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Mancuso v. State, 652 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1995) (knowledge of injury/necessity of knowledge for willful leaving the scene)
- Stanfill v. State, 384 So.2d 141 (Fla. 1980) (statutory framework and nature of the crime under 316.027)
- Dumas v. State, 700 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 1997) (duty to act tied to knowledge of accident; knowledge triggers duties)
- Cahours v. State, 147 So.3d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (first district adopts actual knowledge requirement for willful leaving the scene)