Fort Lauderdale, FL
Criminal defense Lawyer at Fort Lauderdale, FL
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, DUI & DWI ... +7 more
OUTCOME: Not guilty
Disclaimer: The facts of every case are different and unique. Schwartzreich & Associates, P.A. cannot make any promises or guarantees to the outcome of your or any particular case. The above posted re ... ults should not be relied upon for a guarantee as to your case. State v. Wenngert. Official Misconduct Battery
OUTCOME: Reversed
Disclaimer: The facts of every case are different and unique. Schwartzreich & Associates, P.A. cannot make any promises or guarantees to the outcome of your or any particular case. The above posted re ... ults should not be relied upon for a guarantee as to your case. RUBINGER v. STATE Ariella RUBINGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 4D10–5043. -- September 27, 2012 Marla Chicotsky, Eric T. Schwartzreich of Schwartzreich & Associates, P.A., and Michael A. Gottlieb of Michael A. Gottlieb, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. Ariella Rubinger appeals her final judgment and sentence for culpable negligence, claiming that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce irrelevant, prejudicial evidence of her behavior after the alleged crime. We reverse. By way of background, Rubinger was involved in a two-car accident on Interstate 595, which resulted in the death of the driver of the other vehicle. The victim and his passenger were travelling ahead of Rubinger at a rate of 50 to 55 miles per hour. As the victim was about to exit the highway, Rubinger's vehicle struck the victim's car in the rear. Rubinger's estimated speed before impact was hotly contested. However, the State presented evidence that Rubinger was travelling at a high rate of speed. The State did not present any other direct evidence establishing Rubinger was driving erratically, that she was distracted, or that she was on her cell phone at the time of the accident. Immediately after the accident, Rubinger came in contact with several emergency and police personnel. These witnesses observed Rubinger talking on her cell phone, fixing her hair, and applying makeup. They testified that Rubinger's main focus seemed to be getting to a party, and she was overheard asking someone on the phone to come pick her up and take her to Miami. At least one witness requested that Rubinger get off the phone, which she did not immediately do. Overall, emergency and police personnel described Rubinger as distracted, indifferent, and unappreciative of the gravity of the situation. A number of witnesses stated that while Rubinger's behavior was unusual, they did not smell alcohol on her, and she did not appear impaired. We note that Rubinger was not aware that the victim had expired at this point in time. Rubinger was charged with DUI manslaughter (Unlawful Blood Alcohol Level) (Count I); DUI manslaughter (Count II); vehicular homicide (Count III); and DUI property damage (Count IV). Before trial, Rubinger filed a motion in limine to exclude the evidence of her behavior at the accident scene. The State sought to introduce the evidence at issue to prove the impairment and reckless driving elements of the DUI and vehicular homicide counts, respectively. The trial court denied Rubinger's motion and allowed emergency and police personnel to testify about Rubinger's behavior after the accident. Because the State was required to prove that Rubinger operated her vehicle in a reckless manner, it maintains that evidence of Rubinger's behavior at the accident scene was relevant. According to the State, the jury could infer that Rubinger drove recklessly because she was talking on her cell phone, appeared distracted, and was in a hurry to get to a party after the accident. Therefore, the State argues that the trial court did not err in permitting the introduction of Rubinger's post-accident behavior. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand this matter for a new trial on the charge for which Rubinger was convicted. Reversed and Remanded. DAMOORGIAN, J. WARNER and CONNER, JJ., concur.
OUTCOME: not guilty
disclaimer "all cases and facts are different, results on one case is not a guarantee of a result on another case" Alleged fleeing law enforcement
OUTCOME: not guilty
disclaimer, " all facts are different, results on one or no guarantee of results on another official misconduct