IN RE FORFEITURE OF 1985 CHEVROLET CAMARO, 2-DOOR VIN: 1G1FP87H7FL447764 TAG NO. YCU 522; BARBARA GRUBB AND JAY ALAN GRUBB, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF SEBRING, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a vehicle forfeiture order, holding that a vehicle cannot be forfeited as an instrumentality of vehicular homicide because the use of a vehicle is an essential element of that offense, not merely an instrumentality of it.
A vehicle cannot be forfeited as an instrumentality of vehicular homicide because the use of a vehicle is an element of the offense, not merely an instrumentality. Therefore, the vehicle was not subject to forfeiture under section 932.701(2)(e), Florida Statutes.
[1] A vehicle cannot be forfeited as an instrumentality of vehicular homicide when the use of the vehicle is an essential element of the offense of vehicular homicide.
[2] Forfeiture statutes require that the property be used or intended to be used in violation of law, and the property itself must be an instrumentality of the crime, not mer…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the vehicle was not subject to forfeiture because use of a vehicle is an 'element' of the offense of vehicular homicide and, therefore, cannot be considered as an 'instrumentality' of the offense as required by section 932.701(2)(e)”
States the core legal principle underlying the reversal—distinguishing between elements and instrumentalities of a crime
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJay Grubb, operating a vehicle titled to Barbara Grubb, struck and killed a pedestrian. The City of Sebring petitioned for forfeiture of the vehicle u…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Vehicle Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
In this appeal appellants challenge the forfeiture of a vehicle titled in the name of appellant Barbara Grubb and operated by appellant Jay Grubb when he struck and killed a pedestrian. The petition for forfeiture of the vehicle pursuant to sections 932.701 through 932.704, Florida Statutes (1985) alleged that the vehicle was used or intended to be used in violation of section 782.071, Florida Statutes, Vehicular Homicide. The final judgment and final order of forfeiture finds that the vehicle “was used in the commission of vehicular homicide, a felony of the third degree.” Appellants raise three issues on this appeal.
We agree with the first issue and reverse on that basis. We do not find it necessary to reach or decide the other issues. Appellants in their first issue argue that the vehicle was not subject to forfeiture because use of a vehicle is an “element” of the offense of vehicular homicide and, therefore, cannot be considered as an “instrumentality” of the offense as required by section 932.701(2)(e).
We agree. See In re Forfeiture of One 1968 Cessna 310, Serial No. 0037, Registration No. 41370: Heinrich v. Madden, 496 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); City of St. Petersburg Beach v. Jewell, 489 So. 2d 78 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); In re Forfeiture of 1979 Mercedes, 4-Door, VIN No. 11603312085778, Tag No. WHJ 371, 484 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Cabrera v. Department of Natural Resources, 478 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); City of Indian Harbour Beach v. Damron, 465 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
The judgment of forfeiture is reversed and this cause remanded for treatment consistent herewith.
FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. ONE 1980 Ford Mustang M.V., 522 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. In re Forfeiture of 1985 Chevrolet Camaro, 2-Door VIN: 1G1FP87H7FL447764 TAG NO. YCU 522, 518 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Cabrera [*1074] v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 478 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
Authorities Cited
- Birch v. Capeletti Bros., Inc., 478 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- City OF Indian Harbour Beach v. Damron, 465 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- The City OF ST. Petersburg Beach v. Jewell, 489 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Fla. Atl. Assocs. v. Marshall, 484 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- In re the Forfeiture OF 1979 Mercedes, 484 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- In re the Matter of the Forfeiture OF ONE 1968 Cessna 310 Serial # 0037 Registration NO. 41370. Walter C. Heinrich v. Madden, 496 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)