North FL’s Highest Court Finds Vehicular Homicide After Firework Explodes in Car

February 9, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal affirmed a defendant’s vehicular homicide conviction after he drove despite being drunk and a mortar firework exploding in his car, filling it with smoke.

In Florida, vehicular homicide (Fla. Stat. 782.071) is a very serious offense. Vehicular homicide is typically considered a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine.

However, the crime is a first-degree felony (up to 30 years in prison) 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, 2025)
• The defendant fails to give information to authorities, render aid to the victim(s), or leaves the scene of the accident (e.g. fails to stop)

Though some believe vehicular homicide requires intentionally killing another person using a vehicle, this is not the case. For someone to be guilty of this offense in Florida, the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant operated a vehicle
• The defendant’s operation of the vehicle caused the death(s) of one or more other people
• The defendant’s operation of the vehicle (which caused the death) was reckless

In vehicular homicide cases, there is typically no dispute as to the defendant’s operation of a vehicle. However, a defendant may argue (depending on the facts) that their operation of the vehicle was not reckless or that their actions were not the cause of the victim’s death.

On the issue of causation, Florida’s courts have found that a victim’s conduct preceding a fatal crash can serve as a defense to vehicular homicide under certain circumstances. These are quite limited, but include:

• The victim grabbing the steering wheel from the defendant and causing the vehicle to lose control, resulting in a crash that caused their death ((J.A.C. v. State, 374 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1979))
• The victim was consensually involved in a street race with the defendant – and in the process lost control of their own vehicle and crashed (Velazquez v. State, 561 So.2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990))

However, causation is not the most common legal issue in vehicular homicide cases. If someone is accused of this offense, the most common defense is that their operation of the vehicle was not reckless. A defendant may claim they were a “victim of circumstance” and properly operated the vehicle – or that they were careless (e.g. negligent), but not reckless.

Recklessness is not the “easiest” thing for the State to prove in many cases. Florida’s courts have made clear that proving someone’s recklessness for purposes of securing a vehicular homicide conviction requires the State to establish the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant operated their vehicle in a manner they knew or should have known was likely to cause death or great bodily harm
• The defendant did more than simply exceed the speed limit, as this is negligence, not recklessness (Luzardo v. State, 147 So.3d 1083 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2014))

Though “speed alone” is insufficient to support a vehicular homicide conviction (in the absence of aggravating circumstances, such as going forty over the speed limit in an active school zone), speeding can be considered a factor in proving recklessness. Per Hamilton v. State, 439 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d. DCA 1983), other factors include:

• Whether visibility was good or poor at the time of the accident
• Whether the defendant was staying “in their lane” or swerving out of it
• Whether the defendant was traveling in an area with heavy foot traffic (e.g. residential)
• Whether the defendant was familiar with the area in which they were traveling
• Whether there was signage indicating drivers should pay particular attention or slow down (e.g. school zones)
• Whether the cause of the death (e.g. the hazard that caused it) was foreseeable/perceived by others 
• Whether the defendant exercised “any degree of care” to avoid collision

Note: The legal standard for establishing a defendant’s recklessness is the same in vehicular and vessel homicide cases in Florida. To learn more about vessel homicide, click here.

Sometimes, a jury at a Florida vehicular homicide trial will find a defendant guilty. On appeal, a defendant is likely to argue that the jury verdict requires reversal, since the State’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove they drove recklessly.

In one such case heard by Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court, this exact argument was made. However, the 1st DCA rejected the defendant’s claim that he did not drive recklessly. Let’s take a look at that case – Cahours v. State, 147 So.3d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) – and its impact on vehicular homicide law in Florida.

KEY CASE: Cahours v. State, 147 So.3d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 

In Cahours, the defendant (Cahours) was charged with leaving the scene of a crash involving death and vehicular homicide. He was convicted on both counts.

At trial, a witness testified that Cahours had consumed alcohol over the course of roughly seven hours prior to getting behind the wheel. Moreover, while he was driving, an exploding mortar firework filled his vehicle with smoke. Nevertheless, Cahours continued to operate his vehicle, eventually resulting in a collision that killed the victim.

On appeal, Cahours argued that he had not driven recklessly as a matter of law. He cited one of the 1st DCA’s foundational homicide cases, W.E.B. v. State, 553 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), arguing that alcohol consumption alone (without evidence of impairment) was insufficient as a matter of law to support a vehicular homicide conviction.

Note: For a full breakdown of W.E.B. v. State, 553 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), a key case in Florida vehicular homicide law, click here.

However, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal rejected Cahours’s argument and affirmed his vehicular homicide conviction. The 1st DCA distinguished Cahours’s case from W.E.B., writing:

“Appellant acknowledges there was testimony he had consumed alcohol. However, he argues that in W.E.B., this court found alcohol consumption alone was insufficient to demonstrate the recklessness required to sustain a conviction for vehicular homicide. In fact, in W.E.B., this court held that evidence of alcohol consumption alone, without any indication that the driver’s faculties were impaired to any degree, was insufficient. Id. However, in the present case, appellant’s passenger testified that appellant had been drinking for at least seven hours prior to driving and was intoxicated. That is sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude appellant drove impaired and in a reckless manner. 

“Even without testimony of appellant’s intoxication, the State presented evidence at trial that appellant continued to drive his vehicle without braking while a mortar firework exploded and filled the car with smoke. These facts are similar to the Fifth District’s case, State v. Ynocenscio, where that court determined passing a vehicle on a foggy highway constituted reckless behavior sufficient to support a conviction of vehicular homicide. State v. Ynocenscio, 773 So.2d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Reduced visibility due to smoke from the exploding firework, like reduced visibility due to fog, created a dangerous situation where continuing to drive as appellant did was sufficiently reckless to support a conviction of vehicular homicide. Therefore, we find the State presented competent, substantial evidence supporting a conviction of vehicular homicide. Thus, we affirm that conviction.”

Essentially, the 1st DCA concluded Cahours was actually intoxicated (not just that he consumed alcohol) – and that his ability to see out of the vehicle was seriously impaired by the exploding firework. This made Cahours’s decision to drive (which led to a fatal crash) reckless, not simply careless (negligent).

In sum, Cahours v. State, 147 So.3d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) is a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding vehicular homicide. The 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court) found:

• Cahours was intoxicated and could not see clearly out of his car at the time that he drove, leading to a fatal collision
• His case was clearly distinguishable from W.E.B., as there was no exploding firework in W.E.B.’s vehicle, and there was no evidence W.E.B. was intoxicated at the time he drove (just that he had consumed some alcohol)
• Because these additional details made Cahours’s conduct reckless, not simply negligent, his vehicular homicide conviction was affirmed

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Cahours v. State, 147 So.3d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), as it makes clear that appellate courts are likely to evaluate the “totality of the circumstances” when determining whether to affirm or reverse a vehicular homicide (or vessel homicide) conviction on recklessness grounds.

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 criminal 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