Passenger Grabbing Wheel Required Dismissal of Vehicular Homicide Charges Against Driver: Major FL Court

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

Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that the passenger grabbing the wheel of a vehicle he was in was the cause of the fatal crash that killed him, so the driver could not be convicted of vehicular homicide.

In Florida, vehicular homicide (Fla. Stat. 782.071) is an extremely serious second-degree felony. If someone is found guilty, this is typically punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. 

However, under certain circumstances, vehicular homicide is a first-degree felony (up to 30 years in prison and a $10,000 fine).

Vehicular homicide is a first-degree felony if either (or both) of the following are true:

• The defendant has a prior conviction for DUI manslaughter, BUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide or vessel homicide (Fla. Stat. 782.072) (Trenton’s Law)
• The defendant failed to stop at the scene, give relevant information to authorities, or render aid to victim(s) if necessary

For someone to be guilty of vehicular homicide, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant operated a motor vehicle
• The defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle was reckless (likely to cause death or serious bodily harm)
• The defendant’s operation of the motor vehicle (e.g. how they drove) was the cause of the victim’s death (or the death of an unborn child by injury to another)

Important: A motor vehicle is defined as “every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.” T

rains and trams are not included – but the following are:

• Cars and trucks 
• Motorcycles 
• Mopeds 
• Motor scooters 
• Golf carts or bicycles when operated on highways (Meister v. Fisher, 462 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1984)) 
• Commercial vehicles and RVs

A key element that must be proven in a vehicular homicide case is whether the defendant drove recklessly. Recklessness goes beyond mere negligence (carelessness). Reckless driving involves someone intentionally operating a vehicle in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury to others – and consciously disregarding this risk (willfully or through indifference).

To learn more about recklessness for purposes of vehicular and vessel homicide in Florida, click here.

Another critical element of proving vehicular homicide is causation. Specifically, the defendant’s actions must have been the proximate cause (main, foreseeable cause) of the victim’s death for someone to be convicted of vehicular homicide. 

Courts have been consistent that the defendant does not have to be the sole cause (e.g. 100% responsible) to be found guilty. However, there must not be an independent intervening cause – including the conduct of the victim – that is primarily responsible for the victim’s death. State v. Hubbard, 751 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1999)

Florida’s courts are generally reluctant to allow the victim’s conduct before their death to serve as a defense to vehicular homicide. Union v. State, 642 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). But in some cases, the victim was the primary cause of their death. If this is true, the defendant is not guilty of vehicular homicide as a matter of law (because causation cannot be proven).

So, when have Florida courts ruled that a defendant is not guilty of vehicular homicide on the grounds that the victim was primarily responsible for their own death? Let’s take a look at one such case from the 3rd DCA – J.A.C. v. State, 374 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1979) – and what it means for defendants in Florida vehicular homicide cases.

KEY CASE: J.A.C. v. State, 374 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1979) 

In J.A.C., a minor defendant (J.A.C.) was adjudicated delinquent of vehicular homicide (juvenile equivalent of being found guilty) by a judge. He appealed the adjudication of delinquency to the 3rd District Court of Appeal (Southeast Florida).

The facts showed that J.A.C. was driving a vehicle during a drag race in Miami. During the race, the victim (the front seat passenger in J.A.C.’s vehicle) grabbed the steering wheel and caused the vehicle to lose control. This resulted in a fatal crash that killed the passenger.

On appeal, J.A.C. argued to the 3rd DCA that he was not guilty of vehicular homicide as a matter of law. Because the passenger grabbed the steering wheel, J.A.C. argued the passenger’s conduct (conduct of the victim) was the primary cause of his death. Thus, even if he “contributed to” the victim’s demise by racing, he was not guilty of vehicular homicide.

The 3rd DCA agreed and reversed the adjudication of delinquency, with instructions that he be discharged (released from custody). The court wrote: 

“The accident occurred only because the decedent, while attempting to operate the gear shift, instead grabbed the steering wheel and caused the vehicle to go out of control. Under these circumstances, the allegedly wrongful conduct of the respondent could not be deemed the proximate cause of the homicide since its effect was superseded by the decedent’s own independent intervening act. See Cone v. Inter County Telephone & Telegraph Co., 40 So.2d 148 (Fla.1949); Adair v. The Island Club, 225 So.2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Since, as this court has indicated in Karl v. State, 144 So.2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), proximate causation is an essential requirement for conviction of the crime in question, see also Tegethoff v. State, 220 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), and cases cited; cf. Thompson v. State, 108 Fla. 370, 146 So. 201 (1933), the adjudication below may not be sustained. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to discharge the respondent.”

In essence, the State had to prove J.A.C. was the proximate cause (main, foreseeable cause) of the passenger’s death. Because the State could not do so – and in fact, the evidence indicated J.A.C.’s driving was not the proximate cause, the adjudication of delinquency could not stand.

In sum, J.A.C. v. State, 374 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1979) is a significant development in Florida case law on the issue of proximate cause in vehicular homicide cases – and when the conduct of another party (including the victim) makes a defendant no longer the “cause” of a victim’s death.

The 3rd DCA held that:

• The primary (proximate) cause of the crash that caused the victim’s death was the victim grabbing the steering wheel as J.A.C. was driving, leading to the fatal accident
• Because J.A.C.’s driving (even if reckless) was not the proximate cause of the victim’s death, he was not guilty of vehicular homicide as a matter of law

Florida defense attorneys and defendants should take note – as J.A.C. stands for a time-honored legal principle that can defeat vehicular (or vessel) homicide charges, depending on the facts of the case.

Important: The legal standard for recklessness and causation is the same in Florida vehicular homicide and vessel homicide cases. For more on the legal similarities between these charges, 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