SAO #: 20CFO14855AN STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA ACTION MEMO 4211212023 FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL - BRADENTON CPL SLOCUM, #3769; Records Defendant: ZACHARY MATTHEW NELSON Clerk#: -2020CF001631AX Agency #: 2019-FHP-041945 Charge(s): Leaving Scene Of Crash With Death; Leaving Scene Of Crash With Death; Leave Scene Of Crash With Serious Bodily Injury NOLLE PROSEQUI: All charges Reason. In 2019, the defendant was the driver of a vehicle that struck and killed two victims and caused serious bodily injury to another victim. This crash occurred during nighttime hours when the area was dark and not well lit. There is evidence that the vehicle briefly stopped before a neighbor (who was not an eyewitness to the crash) saw it leaving the area. The defendant contacted law enforcement after seeing a news article on the crash and reported that he believes he was involved in that crash based on when and where it occurred and stated that he believed he had hit an animal. He waited for law enforcement to arrive to his residence and cooperated in their investigation. He made no incriminating statements that he knew the crash involved human beings. In order to prove the charges of Leaving the Scene of a Crash involving Death or Serious Bodily Injury, the State must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant “knew or should have known from all of the circumstances, including the nature of the crash, of the injury or death of (the victim)’. Fla Stat, 316.027 and Florida Standard Jury Instruction 28.4. See State v. Mancuso, 852 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla, 1985) (holding that criminal iabiliy for leaving the scene of an accident involving death or injury required proof that motorist knew of resulting injury or death or reasonably should have known from the nature of the accident). See also McGowan v. State, 139 So. 3d 934, 999 (Fla, 48 DCA 2014) (holding that there is no evidence to establish that the driver knew or shouid have known that he struck a person because no one would reasonably expect that a person ‘would be in the middle lane of I-96 in the early morning hours and there was no evidence that the victim should have been seen by the light of the vehicles or overhead lighting). ‘Subsequent to the filing of the Information, depositions were conducted. During the deposition of, the Florida Highway Patrol Traffic Homicide Investigator assigned to this case, he was specifically asked if there was any direct evidence that the defendant knew or should have known he hit people? ‘The Trattic Homicide Investigator responded with "People... not that | know of or identified’. He clarified there was no evidence in the case to prove that one would have known that they struck @ person versus an animal. When asked if there was any evidence in the roadway that would indicate that the defendant hit people, the Traffic Homicide Investigator indicated that there was not. The Traffic Homicide Investigator further elaborated that the physical damage to the defendant's vehicle ‘would have only indicated that he struck something large. When questioned further by the defense, the Traffic Homicide Investigator agreed that the Defendant's version that he thought he hit a large animal was consistent with, and a reasonable view, of what the damage to the vehicle would support. ‘Additionally, a responding Deputy stated in her deposition that “we have wildlife all over the place up there” including cattle, coyotes, horses, and huge boars. This was confirmed by another responding Detective, Multiple officers agreed that the damage to the Defendant's truck was inconsistent with striking a single human. The Tratfic Homicide Investigator also agreed in his deposition that it would be reasonable for a driver to not know what they hit when something is in their lane of travel.SAO #: 20CFO1405SAM ‘The physical evidence on scene also does not support a conviction in this case. The Traffic Homicide Investigator noted in his report that the area of collision was not apparent based on the physical evidence. He noted that he observed vehicle pieces in the roadway and grass shoulder, and paint chips in the roadway and grass shoulder. In addition to the Traffic Homicide Investigator, a Traffic Crash Investigator was assigned. He stated that the cone of debris was concentrated in the ‘ight ane area/paved shoulder, and widens from there. He concluded thatthe area of impact ‘occurred in the paved shoulder or right traveling lane ofthe road. This i inconsistent with the intial testimony of the only victim not hit by the vehicle - who initaly stated thatthe impact happened in the crass. There is also evidence to suggest thatthe feld of debris was impacted by vehicle travel through the area prior to the crash investigation and traffic homicide investigation and this vehicle traffic could have caused the feld of debris to move closer to grassy area. A witness from the responding fire department, arriving prior tothe crash and FHP trafic homicide investigators, stated that there was debris in the road. When asked at deposition if he could determine where the area of impact was, the Trafic Homicide Investigator stated that he could not determine that. He further stated thatthe victims could have ended up in their final areas of rest (which were off into the grass shoulder ofthe road) if they had been waking inthe roadway. In other words, thelr final area of rest in. the grassy shoulder did not mean they were hit in the grassy shoulder area. There were also two tre tracks located on scene. Due tothe placement ofthese tracks, they could have been originally construed by the Trafic Homicide Investigator as belonging to the Defendant. However, after being presented with information that there were other vehicles on scene the Traffic Homicide Investigator agreed that he now does not know if those tre tracks belong to the Defendant's vehicie. ‘Additionally, video evidence in this case shows the victims walking down the road and the Defendant crving down the road shorlly before the area of impact. There is no evidence of the Defendant driving erratically in that video. Initial testimony from the only victim not hit by the vehicle indicated thatthe pedestrians were not walking inthe roadway prior to the crash, however the video evidence shows al four pedestrians walking in the paved portion ofthe roadway, at approximately 2:40am, moments before the impact occurred. The video evidence shows numerous vehicles traveling down that road prior tothe arrival ofthe fre department minutes later, which supports the above stated suggestion of debris relocation prior tothe trafic crash or trafic homicide investigation. Witness testimony supports the Defense's position that if the Defendant stopped and looked back, hhe would nat have seen the vietims or evidence that he had been in a crash that involved people. Multiple fist responders on scene stated that they could not see the victims when they pulled up to the scene and the scene was not immediately apparent from driving down the road. They confirmed that the victims of the crash could not be seen when looking down the roadway. ‘The inal statement from the vietim who was not hit by the vehicle stated thatthe vehicle struck {the vietims and intentionally carried them into the ditch. He stated that the vehicle had all four tres in the grass and that he tried to pull one of the victims to safety prior to impact. He also stated that the victim of the Serious Bodily Injury count landed in the roadway after being hit. These statements were all contradicted by other evidence in the case. The Traffic Homicide Investigator stated that the truck Could not have hit and carried the victims into the ditch as described by this witness, He also stated that the assertation that the vehicle had all four wheels on the grass is inconsistent withthe physical evidence in this case. He also stated that it would not have been possible for the witness to perceive the danger ofthe vehicle and react quickly enough to attempt to pull anyone to safety. He also stated that there is no evidence to suppor that the victim with serious bodily injury landed inthe middle of the road. Additionally, it should be noted that medical evidence concludes that the victim of the serious bodily injury count was hit from the front, not from behind. This witness was extremely uncooperative in his deposition and made several statements that once he was released from incarceration he would not be found and would never testify inthis case. Many attempts were made to contact the victim of the Serious Bodtly Injury count and secure her testimony for trial. These altempts included investigation requests through the State Attomey's Office investigator, running address searches to obtain better contact information for her, and listening to all calls of a known associate. This victim has been completely uncooperative in this case and has neverSAO #: 20CFO14855AM ‘appeared for a deposition in this matter. She is the significant other of the witness discussed in the above paragraph who stated he would not be found and would never testiy in this case. Based on the physical evidence, the supplemented testimony obtained at depositions, the applicable statute, jury instructions, and caselaw, the State is unable to prove beyond a reasonable ‘doubt that the Defendant left the scene of a crash that he knew or should have known involved a person. The Undersigned met with the next of kin and notified them. Law enforcement has also been notified. Vsteer &. Cobble y RRISTEN COLLET SUUE BNET Assistant State Attorney Division Chief Dated this___day of January, 2024