Defenses to Vessel Homicide in Florida

July 8, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

In Florida, vessel homicide is a very serious felony offense. A “vessel” is broadly defined as any watercraft (including a boat), regardless of size or propulsion, used or capable of being used for transportation.

Under Fla. Stat. Section 782.072, the crime of vessel homicide is committed when all of the following are proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The victim is dead
• The death was caused by the operation of a vessel by the defendant 
• The defendant operated the vessel in a reckless manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another person

Note: “Great bodily harm” means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor, or moderate harm, and does not include mere bruises. Wheeler v. State, 203 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Vessel homicide is typically a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. But if someone knew or should have known the accident occurred, and failed to give information to the relevant authorities or render aid to the victim, vessel homicide becomes a first-degree felony. This is punishable by up to 30 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Since vessel homicide does not require intent to be proven for someone to be found guilty of the offense, someone facing a charge of vessel homicide may initially believe there are few to no viable defenses to this charge. 

But this is incorrect, as many defenses exist to the charge of vessel homicide. This article will discuss defenses to the very serious felony charge of vessel homicide in Florida.

One of the most common defenses to vessel homicide charges is that someone’s behavior while operating the vessel, while potentially negligent, does not rise to the recklessness necessary for someone to be convicted of this offense. Vessel homicide is not a strict liability offense – just because someone is involved in a fatal collision involving a vessel does not mean they will be found guilty of vessel homicide.

In arguing that the defendant was not reckless in a vessel homicide case, a common issue is the speed at which the vessel was traveling. If someone was speeding at the time that their vessel was involved in a collision resulting in the death of another, they may face a charge of vessel homicide – as police and prosecutors may argue speeding constitutes recklessness. 

But Florida’s courts have ruled that in vessel and vehicular homicide cases – which both require “reckless” conduct by an operator for someone to be found guilty of the offense – speeding alone is insufficient to establish culpability.  Luzardo v. State, 147 So.3d 1083 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2014)

In Luzardo, a driver was traveling over 80 miles per hour on a largely empty highway in the middle of the day with clear visibility. The speed limit was 55 miles per hour. As Luzardo was driving, a car in the lane to his left unexpectedly attempted a left turn – putting him directly in Luzardo’s path. Luzardo collided with the turning car, and the driver in that car died.

As he was speeding by nearly 30 miles an hour, Luzardo was convicted of vehicular homicide. But the Third District Court of Appeal reversed Luzardo’s conviction, holding that his excessive speed alone did not rise to the level of “recklessness” needed to convict him of vehicular homicide. In the absence of additional evidence of recklessness, the Luzardo court considered speeding mere negligence (failure to use ordinary care). Id. 

Though Luzardo involved a car crash rather than a collision of two or more vessels, the ruling is applicable to vessel homicide cases due to the identical legal standard for recklessness. But this does not mean excessive speeding cannot be considered a factor in evaluating whether a vessel operator was reckless. Courts have been clear that a recklessness determination is based on the totality of the circumstances. State v. Gensler, 929 So.2d 27 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2006).

If a vehicle or vessel operator was traveling at an excessive speed in conditions that they knew or should have known were especially dangerous, this can support a conviction for vessel homicide under Gensler. Factors courts evaluate include whether visibility at the time was poor, whether it was daytime or nighttime when the collision occurred, and whether signage or traffic lights indicated the need for someone to slow down.

In addition to lack of reckless operation, another defense to vessel homicide is that a defendant was not the proximate cause of a collision. Courts have held that in vehicular and vessel homicide cases, someone does not have to be entirely responsible for the occurrence of a fatal collision to face a criminal charge. 

In vessel (and vehicular) homicide cases, courts consider the following in evaluating whether a sufficient causal connection exists between the defendant’s conduct and the underlying result (State v. Hubbard, 751 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1999)):

• Whether the prohibited result of the defendant’s conduct is beyond the scope of any fair assessment of the danger created by the defendant’s conduct
• Whether it would be otherwise unjust, based on fairness and policy considerations, to hold the defendant criminally responsible for the prohibited result

If a fatal collision was an unforeseeable result of the manner in which the defendant operated the vessel collision, or if it would be “unjust” based on broader policy considerations to hold them responsible for the result, courts are likely to find that a vessel homicide conviction cannot be supported as a matter of law. (Hubbard).

Other defenses may include a medical emergency or a failure in the functioning of the vessel (mechanical failure) being the cause of the fatal collision. Even if a defendant was operating a vessel that did cause the death of another, a vessel homicide conviction cannot be supported if the reason for the collision was entirely outside the defendant’s control. 

A medical episode or mechanical failure negates the mens rea (mindset) element of a charge of vessel homicide, which requires (at a minimum) the defendant to have been operating the vessel recklessly when the fatal collision occurred. However, if someone knew of a dangerous medical condition they had (such as severe epilepsy) and operated a vessel despite the foreseeable risk of a medical episode, this may make a medical emergency defense more difficult.

Yet another defense is whether the defendant was actually operating a vessel. Though this is sometimes not in dispute, someone may be erroneously charged with vessel homicide despite not being an “operator” of the vessel under Florida law.

Fla. Stat. Section 327.02(34) notes that for someone to be considered an operator of a vessel, at least one of the following must be true:

• The defendant must have been in charge of or in command of (the captain), or in actual physical control of a vessel 
• The defendant must exercise control over or to have responsibility for a vessel’s navigation or safety while the vessel is underway
• The defendant must have controlled or steered a vessel being towed by another vessel 

If someone is merely present on a vessel and does not have actual physical control of it (or a separate vessel steering it) at the time of a fatal collision, and is not the captain of the vessel, Florida law bars a conviction for vessel homicide.

Procedural defenses can also be critical in fighting a vessel homicide charge. In certain cases, someone may have their constitutional rights violated by police during the investigation of an alleged vessel homicide, requiring the suppression of evidence obtained. 

If law enforcement does not go through proper legal channels to obtain evidence (such as seeking warrants when required or failing to read someone their Miranda rights before custodial interrogation), the evidence obtained therefrom is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” subject to suppression. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).

Other relevant defenses to vessel homicide may include:

• No actual or constructive knowledge of the collision: If someone is charged with first-degree vessel homicide (failure to report and/or render aid), an argument that they did not know and should not have necessarily known of the fatal collision may become relevant
• Alibi defense or mistaken identity (if someone is wrongly identified as being aboard or having operated the vessel)

In sum, vessel homicide is a very serious felony in Florida. If someone is convicted, they may face a maximum of between 15 years in prison (for second-degree vessel homicide) and 30 years in prison (for first-degree vessel homicide).

However, various viable defenses exist to this charge. These include a lack of reckless operation of the vessel, a lack of proximate cause (the defendant’s conduct was insufficiently responsible for the underlying result), unforeseeable medical emergencies, mechanical failures, lack of actual operation of the vessel, and many more. 

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