North Florida’s Highest Court: Speeding Through Red Lights, Swerving Supported Vehicular Homicide Conviction

December 19, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that a driver who sped through multiple red lights, swerved through traffic and executed illegal turns could be found guilty of vehicular homicide.

In Florida, vehicular homicide (Fla. Stat. 782.071) is a very serious felony offense. For someone to be 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 carries harsh penalties if someone is convicted. As a second-degree felony, it is 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 has a prior conviction for DUI manslaughter, BUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide or vessel homicide (Trenton’s Law)
• The defendant did not stop (e.g. fled the scene), give information or render aid – as Florida law requires if involved in a crash

Often, a vehicular homicide prosecution comes down to proving whether the defendant drove recklessly, rather than negligently (carelessly). This is quite a high standard – intentionally so, because the Florida Legislature does not wish to send people to prison who happen to have been involved in a fatal accident despite not driving irresponsibly.

Per W.E.B. v. State, 553 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), recklessness involves “willfully and wantonly” operating a vehicle in a manner that the defendant knows is likely to cause injury or death to persons or property – but they consciously and intentionally disregard that risk.

Sometimes, a jury will find someone guilty of vehicular homicide at trial – and the verdict will be appealed by the defendant. When this occurs, appeals courts (District Courts of Appeal) may be asked to consider whether the defendant’s driving before the fatal collision was truly reckless, or simply negligent (which would require reversal of the conviction).

As vehicular homicide cases have been heard for decades in Florida, courts have relied upon a variety of factors to assess whether someone drove recklessly. These include:

• Whether the defendant was speeding, and if so, by how much (though speeding alone is generally insufficient to establish recklessness in vehicular homicide cases)
• 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 defendant made illegal maneuvers (e.g. illegal u-turns/passed over yellow lines)
• 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))

To learn more about the process Florida’s courts use to evaluate whether a defendant was truly reckless in a vehicular homicide (and vessel homicide) case, click here.

As you can see, courts do not just focus on whether someone was speeding, whether it was dark, or whether there was traffic – they consider all of this (and more). That’s called a totality of the circumstances analysis – and courts are required to conduct this to determine whether someone was reckless. Luzardo v. State, 147 So.3d 1083 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2014)

Though recklessness is often not proven (or it’s a “close call”), sometimes the circumstances of a vehicular homicide make recklessness quite easy to establish. Let’s take a look at one such case heard by Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court – Thrift v. State, 293 So.3d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) – and its key takeaways for vehicular homicide defendants in Florida.

KEY CASE: Thrift v. State, 293 So.3d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)

In Thrift, the defendant (Thrift) caused an accident that resulted in the death of an 18-year-old driver and seriously injured a 17-year-old passenger in that same vehicle. According to the 1st DCA, the following facts came out at Thrift’s trial:

• Thrift speeding was speeding and cutting off other cars before the crash
• Thrift made repeated illegal u-turns over concrete medians 
• Thrift ran a first red light at a very busy intersection, nearly hitting an oncoming car, before the fatal crash
• Thrift accelerated through a second red light from the shoulder of the roadway minutes later, without warning, striking another vehicle (and killing the driver)

At trial, Thrift moved for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA), arguing that no reasonable jury could conclude she was reckless based on the evidence. However, the trial judge denied this – and the jury found Thrift guilty of vehicular homicide. 

On appeal, Thrift renewed the argument made in her MJOA to Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal. Summarizing this, the 1st DCA wrote:

“In moving for a judgment of acquittal, Thrift argued the State had not proved she acted willfully or wantonly. The trial court denied Thrift’s motion explaining that, when considering the evidence in a light favorable to the prosecution, a fact question was presented as to whether Thrift’s conduct evidenced ‘a conscious and intentional indifference to consequences and knowledge that damage is likely to be done to persons or property.’”

The 1st DCA then discussed the “standard of review” in the case, noting that the 1st DCA would not reverse Thrift’s conviction (find the MJOA was wrongly denied) unless the verdict was not supported by competent and substantial evidence:

“In reviewing a motion for judgment of acquittal, a de novo standard of review applies. See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002) (citing Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)); see also Dunn v. State, 206 So. 3d 802, 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). An appellate court will not generally reverse a conviction supported by competent, substantial evidence. Pagan, 830 So. 2d at 803; Donaldson v. State, 722 So. 2d 177, 182 (Fla. 1998). If, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction. Pagan, 830 So. 2d at 803; Dunn, 206 So. 3d at 804.”

After reviewing the trial record, the 1st DCA concluded that the jury’s guilty verdict was indeed supported by competent, substantial evidence and affirmed Thrift’s conviction:

“We have not been persuaded that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a judgment of acquittal. The repeated instances of illegal as well as reckless driving maneuvers within a short distance from and short time before the crash would permit a trier of fact to conclude death or great bodily harm was foreseeable based on how Thrift was driving. AFFIRMED.”

In sum, Thrift v. State, 293 So.3d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) is a major development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding recklessness in vehicular homicide cases.

The Thrift case was a relatively straightforward one, as the 1st DCA affirmed the jury’s verdict (and the trial judge’s denial of Thrift’s MJOA) on the grounds Thrift was driving recklessly. This was because the evidence showed:

• Thrift was consistently speeding
• Thrift swerved between various cars in heavy traffic, cutting them off
• Thrift made multiple illegal u-turns over concrete medians
• Thrift ran two red lights, the second of which she rapidly accelerated through without warning (causing the fatal crash)

Because of this, Florida’s 1st DCA found competent, substantial evidence had been shown to the jury proving Thrift’s recklessness – a key element the State had to prove to establish her guilt of vehicular homicide. 

Important: Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal has also reversed guilty verdicts in vehicular homicide cases because the defendant did not drive recklessly as a matter of law. To read about one such case, click here.

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