State v. Gaulden, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5599

State appealed dismissal of charge under 316.027(l)(b) for leaving the scene after a crash involving death.
Decedent was a passenger in Gaul-den's moving vehicle until separated, then hit the road and died.
Gaul-den continued driving after separation and did not stop or provide full statutory assistance.
Trial court dismissed because no evidence of contact between decedent and Gaul-den's vehicle, thus no “crash.”
Appeal focused on the meaning of “involved” and “crash” in 316.027(l)(b); de novo review of legal questions.
Court reversed and held that the crash includes a collision resulting in death or injury, requiring stopping and assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning of involved in a crash in 316.027(l)(b)	State: vehicle must be involved in a crash causing death/injury.	Gaul-den: no crash occurred without direct vehicle contact.	Driver must stop; vehicle involved in a crash includes collisions resulting in death/injury.
Whether lenity or legislative history applies when language is clear	Statutory language clear; no need for lenity.	Language ambiguous; lenity should apply.	Lenity not required; statute clear and unambiguous.

State v. Elder, 975 So.2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (defines ‘involved’ in 316.027(l)(b) as related to causing a crash)
State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Williams, 937 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (defines ‘crash’ in 316 as an instance of crashing; confirms crash can involve indirect collision)
Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803 (Fla. 2008) (rule of lenity applied as last resort for ambiguous criminal statutes)
Hayes v. David, 875 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (statutes should be construed plainly if language clear)
Dumas v. State, 700 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 1997) (purpose of 316.062 includes aiding crash victims)
Koile v. State, 934 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 2006) (canon of construction; lenity when language ambiguous)