Background
Neckson Faustin was convicted of two counts of vehicular homicide and one count of reckless driving causing property damage. In consolidated appeals, he also challenged a related order revoking his probation and imposing a sentence.
At trial, Detective Michael Wiley testified about the vehicles’ speeds using a “momentum formula.” Wiley acknowledged that he was not an accredited accident reconstructionist. He derived vehicle weights from internet averages, used Google Maps and a protractor to calculate departure angles, assumed one vehicle’s approach angle was zero, and could not produce his field sketch.
The Court’s Holding
The court reversed Faustin’s convictions and sentences in the substantive criminal case and remanded for a new trial. Wiley’s formula-based speed estimates depended on specialized knowledge and methodology, making them expert testimony governed by section 90.702, Florida Statutes, rather than permissible lay investigative testimony.
The trial court did not conduct the required reliability analysis. The error was not harmless because Wiley’s estimates purported to corroborate event-data-recorder evidence on the central question whether Faustin drove recklessly, and that recorder data could not reliably be interpreted without independent accident reconstruction. The court otherwise affirmed the substantive-case rulings, including use of a six-person jury. It affirmed the probation revocation but vacated the VOP sentence and remanded for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet.
Key Takeaways
- A police investigator’s formula-based crash-speed calculation is expert testimony when it relies on specialized knowledge.
- Courts must apply section 90.702’s reliability requirements before admitting that testimony.
- The probation revocation stands, but the related sentence must be recalculated using a corrected scoresheet.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that labeling technical testimony as part of an investigation does not avoid Florida’s expert-evidence gatekeeping requirements. Where crash reconstruction evidence bears directly on recklessness, unreliable or unvetted speed estimates can require a new trial.