Articles Posted in Felony Crimes

Published on:

In Florida, vehicular manslaughter cases are very serious. That seems obvious, but states and counties treat these crimes differently depending on how prosecutors’ offices and judges view them. Vehicular homicide often involves a defendant who did not intend to commit a crime and has never been in trouble before doing something with the most tragic results. Some places view this as worthy of probation. Others view it as worthy of long prison sentences. In Jacksonville, Florida, they are most often viewed in the latter manner and come with significant prison sentences.

Most vehicular homicide cases involve a person who causes a crash that results in death while being impaired from alcohol or drugs. In that case, the police officer will investigate the driver at the scene, do field sobriety exercises if practicable, request a breathalyzer test after the arrest at the jail or request that blood be drawn for testing if the driver goes to the hospital.

However, the state can charge a person with vehicular homicide even if no drugs or alcohol was involved with the crash. The law in Florida distinguishes accidents involving negligence from those involving reckless driving. Negligence cases normally involve a driver violating one or two traffic laws resulting in a crash. For example, if a person was speeding, ran a red light or pulled out in front of another vehicle and caused a deadly crash, that is likely to be considered negligence. Negligent conduct results in traffic tickets and lawsuits but not criminal charges. If a person’s driving goes beyond that kind of negligence and is particularly egregious, it can be considered reckless. For instance, driving 65 miles per hour in a 45 miles per hour zone and causing a crash is probably going to be considered negligence given how common speeding is. However, driving 85 mph erratically in a 45 mph zone in the rain certainly comes closer to recklessness and criminal behavior. Ultimately, the police decide if it is sufficient for an arrest, the prosecutor decides if it is sufficient to file criminal charges and a judge or jury decides if the defendant is in fact guilty of the crime.

Published on:

The Stand Your Ground law in Florida is a much publicized area of Florida criminal law that addresses when a defendant can gain immunity for using force and causing death or serious injury in self defense. It is not available to every defendant who is charged with a serious violent crime, but it can be a very helpful tool when a defendant is eligible to assert the Stand Your Ground law in Florida.

A recent murder case south of Jacksonville, Florida illustrates a situation where a defendant was not allowed to assert the Stand Your Ground law. As an initial matter, a defendant charged with a violent crime can only use the Stand Your Ground law in Florida if he/she was facing an imminent threat of death or serious injury which prompted him/her to use force. “Imminent” under Florida law is understood to mean something that is about to happen, not something that is expected to, or might, happen some time in the future. In this case, the defendant and his co-worker had a conflict at work. The victim told the defendant that after work, when he sees the defendant, he is going to stab him. Thereafter, the defendant armed himself with a knife and confronted the victim. The two got into a fight, and the defendant stabbed the victim, killing him.

The criminal defense lawyer for the defendant argued that the defendant stabbed the victim in self defense as he was legitimately scared that the victim would stab him, as he said he would earlier in the day.

Published on:

As criminal defense lawyers in Jacksonville, Florida, we receive many calls from people who had a criminal case in their past and are suffering the effects of it many years later. They are finding it difficult to get a job or to get into school or even to rent an apartment. For these people, we can help by sealing or expunging their prior criminal charge, if they are eligible. However, the rules for sealing or expunging a criminal charge in Florida are fairly strict, and many people are not eligible. if you have a criminal record and want to know if you are eligible to have a prior criminal case sealed or expunged, feel free to call us with questions.

It is one thing to have to disclose a prior criminal record on an employment application (most people expect that), but a criminal record often comes up when someone is trying to rent a house or apartment. Prospective tenants do get rejected based on criminal records, even if the prior criminal charge was minor and/or occurred many years ago. The federal government says this practice violates the law. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development has issued a statement indicating that is is illegal for landlords to reject a tenant applicant based solely on an arrest record or prior conviction(s). This practice violates fair housing laws when a landlord does not consider how serous the prior crime(s) is and whether the applicant will have a negative impact on other tenants. Obviously, people with minor criminal records and people who have not had any trouble with the law in many years are less likely to be a problem to other tenants. Those individuals should have their applications for housing properly considered just like anyone else without a criminal record. To deny the application for anyone with a criminal record violates fair housing laws.

Published on:

On television shows, it is not uncommon to see prison guards helping inmates do things they should not do. Hopefully, this is something that happens more on TV than in real life. However, there are cases where prison and jail guards help inmates smuggle drugs and other contraband into the prison and facilitate fights between inmates. There was also a well publicized case from New York a year or two ago where a prison guard helped some dangerous inmates escape a maximum security prison.

In a case near Jacksonville, Florida, a prison guard was charged with culpable negligence, official misconduct and accessory after the fact for enabling an inmate to attack another inmate. In this case, the corrections officer allowed one of the more dangerous inmates to leave his cell without handcuffs, enter the cell of the victim and close the cell door. The attacker then stabbed the victim. The officer then mopped up the blood in the victim’s cell. The problem for the corrections officer is that another inmate observed the entire incident including the officer allowing the attacker to move freely through opened doors in the prison. The other problem is that the inmate witness was on the phone describing the incident as it occurred, and all such calls from the prison are recorded.

The prosecution admitted the evidence of the recorded phone call describing the officer’s actions and the attack during the trial. The criminal defense lawyer argued that the recorded phone call was inadmissible hearsay and should not be admitted during the trial. The court disagreed and held that the recorded phone call fell under an exception to the hearsay rule which involves people describing observed events as they occur. The law finds that unplanned statements describing an event that are made as the event is occurring are typically reliable. Additionally, the recorded phone call was not “testimonial” as it was spontaneous and not a statement given for use later at trial. Therefore, the recorded phone call was admissible to essentially seal the conviction of this corrections officer.

Published on:

In Florida, vehicular homicide is a very serious felony offense that normally results in a prison sentence if the state can prove its case. Most of these cases deal with someone who is driving while impaired from alcohol and/or drugs and causes a traffic crash that results in the death of another person. If the state can prove that the driver was impaired so that his/her normal faculties were compromised, such as sight, judgment, coordination, and the driver causes a crash that results in a death, a vehicular homicide charge will likely follow.

There are serious traffic crashes that occur every day in Florida. Most of them are the result of one or more people driving poorly and violating some traffic law causing a crash. People speed, change lanes without looking, run red lights and commit other traffic infractions that result in serious crashes. It is always a judgment call, but if the person who causes the crash commits a routine traffic infraction, criminal charges are not likely. For instance, regular speeding, running a red light, improper lane change are generally not the kinds of things that result in criminal charges after a serious crash. Those are generally considered negligence cases that result in traffic citations and civil lawsuits.

However, even if no alcohol or drugs were involved, if the driving could be considered reckless, criminal charges can be brought. Recklessness has a legal definition, but it is a matter of interpretation. Basically, it is a judgment call, and it depends on the circumstances, although the more serious the crash and the more serious the injuries, the lower the bar. Also, the more traffic laws that are violated, the more likely a police officer or prosecutor (and ultimately a judge or jury) will consider the driving to be reckless. Simply running a red light will rarely be recklessness that is enough for a criminal case. However, running a red light plus driving 30 miles per hour over the speed limit while texting on a cell phone could certainly be considered reckless driving if it results in a serious accident.

Published on:

In Florida, there is a critical difference between careless driving and reckless driving, and that difference can be significant when it comes to what the state can do to punish a driver based on his/her driving. Careless driving in Florida is not defined well, but the statute discusses the obligation to drive in a careful and prudent manner with regard to all of the circumstances so as not to endanger the life, limb or property of another person. Reckless driving in Florida is defined as driving in a manner that knowingly disregards the safety of other people and property. For driving to be reckless, the manner of driving must be likely to cause death or serious bodily injury to another. Based on those definitions, it is hard to get a clear picture of the difference between careless driving and reckless driving. However, the effects can be severe.

If we are just talking about the driving, careless driving is a simple traffic ticket and a fine. Reckless driving is a criminal charge that can come with jail time. The state often considers driving careless driving when a person violates one or two traffic laws or possibly causes an accident while violating one traffic law. Reckless driving normally requires much more egregious driving. However, when a serious accident involving injuries or a death is involved, the state is more likely to err on the side of a criminal charge, i.e. reckless driving. This is where the difference can become very serious. If a person is driving recklessly and causes an accident that results in death, he/she will likely be charged with vehicular manslaughter which is very likely to result in prison time. Careless driving that results in a serious accident and death may only come with fines and driving school.

So, the question is: what is the practical difference between careless driving that has minimal punishments and reckless driving that can result in a felony conviction and a lengthy prison sentence if the accident is serious enough? It just depends on the circumstances. In a recent case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant was driving 83 miles per hour on a two lane road where the speed limit was 55 miles per hour. He crashed into a vehicle making a left turn in front of him and killed one of the occupants. The state charged him with vehicular manslaughter alleging that driving that fast on that road was reckless driving. The court ultimately discharged the vehicular manslaughter charge because merely speeding in that area was not sufficient to prove reckless driving. Therefore, the defendant could not be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

Published on:

In a recent armed robbery case west of Jacksonville, Florida, three suspects entered the victim’s home and stole certain items from him at gunpoint. The three suspects fled in a vehicle, and the victim called the police providing a description of the suspects and the vehicle. Shortly thereafter, a police officer saw a vehicle with three occupants that matched the descriptions given by the victim. The police officer stopped the vehicle and detained the occupants by handcuffing them and placing them in his police car. The police officer looked in the passenger compartment of the vehicle through the windows and did not see any evidence of the armed robbery. The police officer then opened the trunk and searched it. The police officer found a gun and drugs in the trunk. Based on this evidence, the police officer searched the passenger compartment more closely and found the items stolen in the armed robbery. Each of the occupants was arrested for armed robbery.

The criminal defense lawyers filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence arguing that the search of the trunk was illegal and that illegal search led to the subsequent search, thereby making it illegal as well. When the police stop someone in a vehicle and detain or arrest that person, they can no longer search the vehicle if the suspect is secured and no longer a threat to the officer. In the past, the police could conduct a “search incident to arrest” which was an automatic search of a car when the driver was arrested. The law changed, and now if the driver is secured, i.e. handcuffed and in the police car, that driver obviously is not a threat to the officer so the officer cannot just search the car for protection. If the police officer does have some specific reason to believe there is some danger, the police officer can search the car as a protective sweep. However, without that specific evidence of danger, the police officer can no longer search a vehicle just because the driver was arrested.

In this case, the police officer testified that he searched the trunk because he thought there might have been a suspect in the trunk. This was easily rejected by the court. A mere suspicion without any supportive facts is not going to be a legal basis for a search. A police officer must have a specific indication of evidence, danger or criminal activity to satisfy the search and seizure provisions of the Constitution.

Published on:

In Florida, if a driver is involved in an auto accident that results in property damage, an injury or death, that driver is required to remain at the scene of the accident and provide certain information such as driver’s license and insurance information. If the driver is involved in an auto accident and leaves the scene, that driver can be charged with a misdemeanor crime or felony crime depending on the severity of the crash. If the accident just resulted in property damage, it is a misdemeanor crime. If the crash resulted in a serious injury, it is a felony crime. If the crash resulted in a death, it is a first degree felony which is the most serious felony crime in Florida. The idea is that people who get into auto crashes need to be held accountable, whether they were impaired from drugs or alcohol or whether they or their insurance company need to pay for the damage caused by the crash. When a person leaves the scene of a crash, the crash cannot be properly investigated and that person cannot be held accountable. The state assumes the person fled the scene because he/she was doing something illegal at the time, usually driving while impaired from alcohol or drugs.

It seems obvious, but in order to prove a person is guilty of leaving the scene of an accident, the state must prove that the driver knew he/she was involved in a crash. In most cases, that is easy, but there are cases when it is not so clear. At night, on a dark street, a driver may hit a pedestrian who walks into the street and think it was an animal or a pothole or something else. If the radio is on or a driver does not hear well, it may not be obvious that a person hit someone or some thing in some cases. In a leaving the scene of a crash case, there may be a defense that the driver did not know of the crash. If the state can only prove the driver should have known about the crash, that is not sufficient for a conviction under Florida law.

Published on:

With the events in Ferguson, Missouri all over the news, there is a lot of information, and a lot of misinformation, about when a police officer can use deadly force against a person. By deadly force, at least in Florida, we mean force that is likely to cause death or a serious injury. An obvious example would be when a police officer shoots someone.

In Florida, a police officer can use deadly force in certain situations. Like anyone else, a police officer can use deadly force if it is reasonably necessary to do so for self defense or to protect another person from imminent serious injury or death. More specific to a police officer’s duties, a police officer may use deadly force if necessary to prevent a person from escaping jail, prison or custody while he/she is awaiting trial. A police officer can also use deadly force to arrest someone fleeing from a crime if the police officer reasonably believes the suspect is a threat to him/herself or others or if the officer believes the suspect is fleeing a crime involving the infliction or threat of infliction of serious harm to others.

The deadly force law in Florida gives a police officer a lot of leeway in using deadly force against suspects. The law is clearly not limited to situations where self defense or defense of others is an issue. A police officer in Florida is allowed to use deadly force in many situations where the suspect is believed to be escaping certain situations, without of course, having to meet the high evidentiary standard used in criminal cases

Published on:

In Florida, it is a very serious felony crime to get into a motor vehicle crash that results in a serious injury or death and leave the scene of the crash without stopping to provide insurance and other information to the police. The idea is that a person who causes a crash must provide his/her insurance information so that the victim can be properly compensated and must speak to the responding officer who will investigate the crash. If a person flees from the scene after causing a crash, the assumption on the part of the state is that the person was doing something wrong while driving, whether drunk driving or driving with a suspended license or driving with an outstanding arrest warrant.

Leaving the scene of an accident would seem like a fairly easy charge for the state to prove. However, it can be difficult depending on the circumstances of the crash and when and how the alleged suspect is caught. In a recent case near Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant hit a person late at night who was standing in the middle of the road on a major highway. The victim was dark skinned and wearing dark clothing. The defendant hit the victim and kept driving. Other potential witnesses saw the crash but were not clear as to how it happened and which vehicle hit the victim because the area was so dark and the victim was hard to see. As for the defendant, he testified that he thought something fell off a truck and hit his vehicle. He did not believe he actually hit a person because he did not expect there to be a person in the middle of the road on a major highway and he never saw anyone. The next day, he checked the damage to his vehicle and saw hair and blood. At that point, he called the police and turned himself in.

His conviction for leaving the scene of an accident with a death was ultimately reversed. The state was able to prove that he hit the victim and left the scene, but the state could not prove that the defendant knew he hit a person. It seems obvious and it is in most cases, but the state does have to establish the defendant knew he hit an actual person to convict him of this crime. In this case, because it was dark, the crash occurred in a place where pedestrians are very rare, other witnesses were unclear about the nature of the crash and the state did not have any specific evidence to prove the defendant’s knowledge, the state did not meet its burden of proof on this case. The defendant’s explanation that he did not know he hit a person was plausible so he was not guilty of the hit and run crime.