State v. Dorsett
Annotate this CaseDefendant was charged with leaving the scene of a crash resulting in an injury under Florida’s hit-and-run statute. During trial, Defendant proposed a jury instruction that required the jury to find as an essential element that Defendant, the driver, had actual knowledge that he was involved in a crash. The trial judge denied the request and provided the standard jury instruction stating that the State must prove Defendant “knew or should have known” that he was involved in an accident. Defendant was found guilty and sentenced to two years in prison. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the jury instructions were incorrect because the law requires “actual knowledge of the accident.” The Supreme Court agreed with the Fourth District’s holding, holding that, for a defendant to be convicted under the state’s hit-and-run statute, the State must prove that the driver had actual knowledge of the crash, an essential element of the crime of leaving the scene of a crash.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.