Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

435 So. 2d 865

Herring v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-07-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It is apparent that the purpose of sections 316.027 and 316.062 is to assure that any injured person is rendered aid and that all pertinent information concerning insurance and names of those involved in the traffic accident is exchanged by the parties.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 700 So. 2d 1223 - State v. Dumas

Relies on 403 So. 2d 954 - Redondo v. State · Thomas v. State · Mooring Condominium Ass'n of Pine Crest v. Toomey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-07-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 2015

3 state decisions

101983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

JORGENSON, Judge.

¶1Howard Herring was charged in a multi-count information and found guilty by a jury of several criminal violations. We affirm the trial court judgments and sentences entered on the jury verdicts with two exceptions and remand for further proceedings.

¶2The state has conceded that Redondo v. State, 403 So.2d 954 (Fla.1981), controls Count IV of the information and the trial court is therefore directed to vacate the conviction and sentence entered upon Count IV. See Thomas v. State, 430 So.2d 616, 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

¶3As for Count VI, section 316.027(2), Florida Statutes (1979), is violated if the driver of a vehicle involved in a traffic accident resulting in injury or death willfully fails to remain at the scene of the accident until the requirements of section 316.-062, Florida Statutes (1979), are fulfilled. See State v. Murray, 425 So.2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); §§ 316.027(1), (2), 316.062, Fla. Stat. (1979).

¶4It is apparent that the purpose of sections 316.027 and 316.062 is to assure that any injured person is rendered aid and that all pertinent information concerning insurance and names of those involved in the traffic accident is exchanged by the parties.

¶5At the time of the injury the “accident” in which Herring was involved was already a fait accompli and no injury resulted therefrom. Sections 316.027 and 316.062 were therefore not implicated. Any injury which resulted occurred after Herring’s vehicle had struck the other vehicle and the *867other vehicle had been stopped. It was the driver of the other vehicle’s act of restarting his vehicle that caused the injury to the passenger of that vehicle. This was an “accident” to which Herring was not a party. The trial court is therefore directed to vacate the conviction and sentence entered upon Count VI of the information.

¶6Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.

/435/so2d/865 · .json · Public domain