Major Florida Court Finds Juvenile Committed Vehicular Homicide

December 4, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Juvenile Offenses Social Share

Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal found that a juvenile driving double the speed limit, in the dark, without an adult in the car despite only having a learner’s permit, committed vehicular homicide when he caused a fatal crash.

In Florida, vehicular homicide (Fla. Stat. 782.071) is a very serious felony offense. For someone to be found guilty, the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant was operating a motor vehicle
• The operation of the motor vehicle was reckless (in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another person)
• The operation of the motor vehicle caused the death of another person or their unborn child

Vehicular homicide is a second-degree felony, typically punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

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

• The defendant has a prior conviction for DUI manslaughter, BUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide or vessel homicide (Trenton’s Law)
• The defendant failed to stop (e.g. “hit and run”), failed to give information to authorities, or failed to render aid when required

One of the most common disputes in vehicular homicide prosecutions is whether the defendant drove recklessly or carelessly. This is critical to determine, since driving carelessly (negligently) and being involved in a fatal accident is not vehicular homicide. The State must prove that the defendant operated the vehicle recklessly, not just carelessly.

There is a key difference in Florida law between careless and reckless operation of a vehicle (or vessel). The following distinction is important to understand (and has been discussed in cases such as W.E.B. v. State, 553 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989):

• Carelessness: A failure to use ordinary care. Examples may include speeding or taking eyes off the road for a brief moment.
• Recklessness: Operating a vehicle in a way that the defendant knows is likely to cause death or injury to persons or property, yet “willfully and wantonly” disregarding that risk and doing so anyway.

Typically, speeding alone is not considered to be “reckless” sufficient to support a vehicular homicide conviction. Luzardo v. State, 147 So.3d 1083 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2014).

Florida’s courts evaluate recklessness based on the totality of the circumstances, considering factors like:

• Whether the defendant was speeding, and if so, by how much
• Whether the defendant disregarded traffic signals, such as stop signs (McCreary v. State, 371 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1979))
• Time of day (or night)
• Whether visibility was poor or good
• Whether the roads were crowded/empty
• Whether a defendant was looking continuously at a device for a long period of time (Andriotis v. State, 399 So.3d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025))

For a full breakdown on what qualifies as recklessness necessary to support a vehicular homicide conviction in Florida, click here.

Note: The legal standard for recklessness in Florida is the same in vehicular homicide and vessel homicide (Fla. Stat. 782.072) cases. For more on this, click here.

Because recklessness is evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances, it is almost like filling up a bathtub with water. If there is enough “water” (evidence of misconduct behind the wheel) in the proverbial tub, the defendant may be considered to have been reckless. 

But sometimes the evidence at trial is legally insufficient to establish recklessness. In such cases, a guilty finding in a vehicular homicide case must be reversed. 

What are some examples of cases where state courts have affirmed a finding that the defendant committed vehicular homicide, as they operated their vehicle recklessly and caused a death? One such case was decided by Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal (Northeast Florida): D.E. v. State, 904 So.2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Let’s discuss it.

KEY CASE: D.E. v. State, 904 So.2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)

In D.E., the juvenile defendant (D.E.) was charged with vehicular homicide. He was tried before a judge (bench trial) and adjudicated delinquent of the offense (finding of guilt for a juvenile). D.E. appealed the adjudication of delinquency to the 5th DCA – arguing that the State did not prove that he was reckless as a matter of law.

D.E. was driving the vehicle alone despite only possessing a learner’s permit (requiring an adult passenger to accompany him).

According to expert testimony at trial, the following occurred:

• D.E. was traveling in a residential area with a 45 mile per hour speed limit
• His peak speed was approximately 100 miles per hour
• D.E. attempted to make a turn to the left around a curve, causing his vehicle to cross over into lanes of oncoming traffic (at approximately 89 miles per hour)
• His car collided with an oncoming vehicle, causing both D.E. and his brother to eject from the car
• The driver of the oncoming vehicle died in the crash

According to the 5th DCA, D.E. moved for a judgment of acquittal at trial, arguing he was not reckless because “speeding alone” was insufficient to prove him guilty. But the trial judge denied this and ultimately adjudicated D.E. delinquent:

“At the conclusion of the State’s case, D.E. moved for a judgment of dismissal. He argued that the State failed to show that he had operated the vehicle in a reckless manner, and asserted the frequently heard maxim that speed alone was not enough to sustain a finding of vehicular homicide. … The trial court denied the motion, finding that the State had presented sufficient evidence respecting each element of the offense.”

After hearing D.E. reiterate his argument that he was not reckless, the 5th DCA rejected his claim and affirmed the trial judge’s finding of delinquency. The court wrote:

“Here, the evidence showed that the collision occurred before the sun had risen, near a school in a residential neighborhood familiar to D.E. at a time when traffic was likely to be congested. D.E. was operating his vehicle without adult supervision in violation of the state licensing law. While some of the evidence regarding speed is conflicting, it appears that D.E. was traveling far in excess of the speed limit, and was unable to maintain his vehicle in a single lane.”

“According to the testimony, his taking the curve at a perilously high rate of speed probably caused D.E. to jerk the wheel to the left, resulting in his loss of control of the vehicle. An expert opined that D.E. came out of the curve straddling the two northbound lanes because his speed would not allow him to maintain a single lane. Thus, it appears that D.E. knowingly drove the car without adult supervision in violation of state law, and knowingly traveled at a dangerously high speed around a dangerous curve in the road near a school in the dark through an area that was familiar to him, and that was likely to become congested. These facts amount to far more than just speeding.”

Essentially, the 5th DCA found that D.E.’s characterization of his driving as simply “speeding” did not take into account the totality of the circumstances. Not only was D.E. “speeding,” he was traveling approximately double the speed limit.

Moreover, he did so:

• Near a school
• In the dark (before sunrise)
• In an area that was likely to become congested with traffic
• Around a curve where such a speed would have made it nearly impossible to continue to maintain control of the car

In sum, D.E. v. State, 904 So.2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) is a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding vehicular homicide – and specifically, when driving qualifies as “reckless” (as opposed to careless). 

The court found that based on the totality of the circumstances, D.E.’s driving was reckless (not just careless), as he:

• Was driving near a school in the dark
• Was going roughly twice the speed limit
• Attempted to round a curve while traveling between 89 and 100 miles per hour, despite this being next to impossible to do without losing control of his car
• Was driving without an adult despite having only a learner’s permit
• Caused a crash that killed a driver in the opposite vehicle by swerving into an opposing lane 

According to the 5th DCA, this made D.E.’s conduct sufficiently reckless to support the trial judge’s delinquency finding. 

Important: In D.E., the 5th DCA tacitly accepted the “maxim” that if D.E. was only speeding, this would have likely been legally insufficient to find him reckless (without aggravating factors such as darkness, etc.). This is important for defense attorneys and defendants to understand if someone is charged with vehicular (or vessel) homicide in Florida.

It is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible if someone is charged with vehicular homicide, DUI manslaughter, BUI manslaughter or vessel homicide. 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