Can Texting and Driving Lead to Vehicular Homicide Charges in Florida?

September 5, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Social Media, Violent Crimes Social Share

In Florida, vehicular homicide is a very serious criminal offense. It is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

It becomes a first-degree felony (up to 30 years in prison and a $10,000 fine) if either of the following are true:

• The defendant failed to stop, give information to authorities, or render aid to the victim(s) after the crash (Fla. Stat. 316.062)
• The defendant has one or more prior convictions for vehicular homicide, vessel homicide, DUI manslaughter or BUI manslaughter (Trenton’s Law, effective Oct. 1, 2025)

Too commonly, texting and driving causes or contributes to a fatal accident. A common question asked is in response to this is – can texting and driving lead to life-altering vehicular homicide charges in Florida?

The answer is: absolutely – texting and driving can lead to someone being charged with (and even convicted of) vehicular homicide if they are involved in a fatal collision. But this is not automatic, as someone’s behavior must still rise to the level of recklessness, and they must be the proximate (but-for) cause of the collision.

This blog will explain the role texting and driving can play in a vehicular homicide case, and when someone being distracted by their cell phone can (and cannot) serve as the basis for a vehicular homicide conviction in Florida.

For someone to be guilty of vehicular homicide (Fla. Stat. 782.071), the following must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant was operating a motor vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, van, etc.)
• The defendant’s actions caused the death of a human being or unborn child at any stage of fetal development
• The defendant was operating the vehicle recklessly at the time

Recklessness in vehicular homicide (and vessel homicide) occurs when someone operates a vehicle in a manner that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to others, and the operator knew or should have known of that risk and disregarded it. W.E.B. v. State, 553 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Note: Even though speeding may be considered a factor, exceeding the speed limit alone cannot support a vehicular homicide conviction as a matter of law without aggravating circumstances (e.g. crowded roads, school zone, foggy). Luzardo v. State, 147 So.3d 1083 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2014).

Unlike other forms of homicide, vehicular homicide does not require intent to kill. However, it is not a “strict liability” crime either, as this would make anyone involved in a fatal car crash guilty. 

Two questions must be answered in the affirmative before someone may be convicted of vehicular homicide (Natal v. State, 278 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)):

• Did the defendant operate the vehicle recklessly?
• Were the defendant’s actions the proximate cause of a victim’s death?

Unlike in Florida DUI manslaughter cases where someone must only “contribute to” the victim’s death to be convicted, vehicular homicide requires actual causation. While this does not mean the defendant had to be the only contributor to the victim’s death, it does mean that they had to be the primary (majority) cause.

This principle was established in Velazquez v. State, 561 So.2d 347, 354 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1990). There, Velazquez and another driver agreed to race their cars at dangerous speeds. The victim lost control of his vehicle and died. Velazquez was charged with (and convicted of) vehicular homicide for being the co-participant in the race.

But the 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction. It held that although Velazquez may have been a “substantial factor” in bringing about the victim’s death, he was not the proximate cause – the victim’s own negligence was. As a result, Velazquez’s conviction could not stand.

In evaluating recklessness, courts have considered factors such as:

• Whether the defendant was speeding, and if so, by how much (Gensler v. State, 929 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006))
• Whether the defendant disregarded traffic signals/stop signs (McCreary v. State, 371 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1979))
• Time of day (or night)
• Whether visibility was poor 
• The type of vehicle the defendant was driving (e.g. if it was a truck full of potentially explosive fuel, as in Santisteban v. State, 72 So.3d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011))
• Whether the roads were crowded or empty 
• Whether a defendant was looking continuously at their cell phone for a substantial amount of time (Andriotis v. State, 399 So.3d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025))

The last of these cases, Andriotis, is the first time Florida’s courts have explicitly affirmed that a driver looking at their phone can serve as the basis for a vehicular homicide conviction. But the court did not rule that if someone is distracted by their device, they are automatically guilty if they are involved in a crash.

In Andriotis, the appellant was traveling down a highway while scrolling his phone. He was estimated to have been traveling at over 70 miles per hour, covering about 2,000 feet of road in approximately fifteen seconds. 

Though a car was stopped in front of him, Andriotis did not slow down, as he was looking at his device. Because he was distracted, he slammed at full speed into the back of the stopped vehicle, killing a victim. He was charged and convicted of vehicular homicide.

On appeal, Andriotis argued that his conduct was not sufficiently reckless to constitute vehicular homicide. But the court disagreed, holding that Andriotis was continuously looking down at his phone for over 15 seconds while driving on the highway. The 5th District Court of Appeal held that this rose to the level of recklessness necessary to support his conviction.

The court also affirmed Andriotis’s conviction because he was the proximate (but-for) cause of the collision. If he had not been distracted by his phone for so long, the court argued, Andriotis could have gone around the stopped vehicle or also hit his brakes. He did neither because he was glued to his device.

Andriotis is a major new case in the realm of determining recklessness for vehicular homicide purposes. It seems to have created a novel legal standard – if someone is texting and driving (or otherwise looking at their device) without looking up for a certain period of time (e.g. 15 seconds on the highway), this can constitute recklessness for vehicular homicide purposes.

But Andriotis is clear that someone having their device in their hand when a collision occurs does not make them guilty of vehicular homicide. Even if being on a device while driving is arguably “negligent” (careless), it is not inherently reckless.

Applying Andriotis, examples of when someone may be charged with and convicted of vehicular homicide based on texting and driving include:

• A is driving through a crowded school zone at double the speed limit and glued to his social media feed. He hits B, a child in a crosswalk, and B dies.
• C is flying down the highway during rush hour, exceeding the speed limit as he types out a text to his mom. He rear-ends D, who was braking due to traffic, and kills her.
• E is sending a lengthy text to F, not looking up for thirty seconds on a relatively crowded road. He runs a red light and crashes into G, killing him.

In these cases the defendant is both the proximate (but-for) cause of the victim’s death, and the duration and continuous nature of their phone use likely rises to the level of recklessness under the circumstances.

Examples of when a vehicular homicide conviction is unlikely to occur despite a driver’s phone use (including texting and driving) include:

• H is sitting at a red light and texting on her phone. J rear-ends her as she’s waiting for the light to turn green, and J dies. 
• K glances briefly at her phone to see an incoming text notification while driving the speed limit. As she does so, M merges into her lane and hits K before she can react. M dies in the resulting crash.
• N is legally parked on the side of the road and is texting a friend. A drunk P is driving home, swerves and slams into the side of her car. P dies, N survives.

These cases are clearly distinguishable from Androitis v. State. Despite there being phone use behind the wheel, it is not likely to be considered reckless given the circumstances. Moreover, the defendant is likely not to be viewed as the proximate cause of the crash.

So, can texting and driving serve as grounds for a vehicular homicide conviction? The answer is yes, but only sometimes. Recklessness is determined in these cases based on the totality of the circumstances in vehicular homicide cases – and occurs when a defendant knew or should have known their conduct behind the wheel was likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

If someone is looking down at their phone continuously for a long time and is driving in quite perilous conditions (e.g. dark, crowded roads, school zone), texting and driving is more likely to serve as the basis for a conviction. If someone merely took a glance at their phone or very briefly used it (especially if conditions were not hazardous), this is less likely to be seen as reckless.

Regardless, the defendant must also be the proximate cause of the victim’s death. Even if someone uses their phone behind the wheel recklessly, a vehicular homicide conviction cannot stand unless their conduct was the primary reason for (not simply a contributor to) the victim’s death.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case involving vessel homicide, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share