Maze v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maze v. State

168 So. 2d 691

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 11, 1964

DocketNo. 4916

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 168 So. 2d 691 (Maze v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maze v. State, 168 So. 2d 691 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the judgment of conviction by a jury of manslaughter due to culpable negligence. The court denied a motion for new trial.

The defendant was charged in separate counts of manslaughter; (1) as a result of intoxication, and (2) by culpable negligence in the operation of an automobile.

At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence tire defendant moved for a directed verdict of not guilty on the charge of manslaughter due to intoxication, which was granted.

The testimony was to the effect that the defendant was proceeding at a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit, at night in a heavy rain, with water standing in the road to depths up to six inches, and with considerable oncoming traffic, struck a pedestrian who was walking on the shoulder of the road, resulting in his death. There was corroboration of the essential facts and considerable testimony of the drinking activities of the defendant before and after the accident, which was properly admitted. Fowlkes v. State, Fla.App.1957, 100 So.2d 826. The record in [692]*692this case establishes the essential elements which constitute manslaughter as a result of culpable negligence. Fulton v. State, Fla. 1959, 108 So.2d 473.

Accordingly, the judgment is

Affirmed.

WHITE, Acting C. J., ANDREWS, J., and DRIVER, B. J., Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the judgment of conviction by a jury of manslaughter due to culpable negligence. The court denied a motion for new trial.

The defendant was charged in separate counts of manslaughter; (1) as a result of intoxication, and (2) by culpable negligence in the operation of an automobile.

At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence tire defendant moved for a directed verdict of not guilty on the charge of manslaughter due to intoxication, which was granted.

The testimony was to the effect that the defendant was proceeding at a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit, at night in a heavy rain, with water standing in the road to depths up to six inches, and with considerable oncoming traffic, struck a pedestrian who was walking on the shoulder of the road, resulting in his death. There was corroboration of the essential facts and considerable testimony of the drinking activities of the defendant before and after the accident, which was properly admitted. Fowlkes v. State, Fla.App.1957, 100 So.2d 826. The record in [692]*692this case establishes the essential elements which constitute manslaughter as a result of culpable negligence. Fulton v. State, Fla. 1959, 108 So.2d 473.

Accordingly, the judgment is

Affirmed.

WHITE, Acting C. J., ANDREWS, J., and DRIVER, B. J., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 2d 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maze-v-state-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack