In Re Standard Inst. in Crim. Cases (No. 2005-3)

969 So. 2d 245, 2007 WL 3101743
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 25, 2007
DocketSC05-1434
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 969 So. 2d 245 (In Re Standard Inst. in Crim. Cases (No. 2005-3)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Standard Inst. in Crim. Cases (No. 2005-3), 969 So. 2d 245, 2007 WL 3101743 (Fla. 2007).

Opinion

969 So.2d 245 (2007)

In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES (NO. 2005-3).

No. SC05-1434.

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 25, 2007.

Honorable Terry David Terrell, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, First Judicial Circuit, Pensacola, FL, for Petitioner.

Paula S. Saunders, Office of the Public Defender, Tallahassee, FL, and Michael Robert Ufferman, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; and Bart Schneider, Lake Mary, FL, Responding with comments.

*246 PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed amendments to the standard jury instructions. As explained below, we authorize a number of amended and new standard jury instructions for publication and use. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

On August 18, 2005, the Committee filed a report proposing amendments to a number of drug abuse and trafficking instructions, and proposing several new instructions with regard to various offenses involving lewd and lascivious conduct.[1] The proposals were published for comment in The Florida Bar News on October 15, 2005. In response to comments received and upon the Committee's further independent review, the Committee determined that it was necessary to amend the proposals, both substantively and to correct errors in stylistic format, grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The Committee ultimately filed, on September 26, 2006, an amended report requesting authorization of its amended proposals.

The Committee proposes two substantive amendments to the drug abuse and trafficking instructions: instructions 25.2 through 25.16. Both amendments are in response to chapter 2002-258, Laws of Florida (codified as section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2006)), which provides as follows:

893.101 Legislative findings and intent.—
(1) The Legislature finds that the cases of Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166 (Fla.2002), and Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996), holding that the state must prove that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of a controlled substance found in his or her actual or constructive possession, were contrary to legislative intent.
(2) The Legislature finds that knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of any offense under this chapter. Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to the offenses of this chapter.
(3) In those instances in which a defendant asserts the affirmative defense described in this section, the possession of a controlled substance, whether actual or constructive, shall give rise to a permissive presumption that the possessor knew of the illicit nature of the substance. It is the intent of the Legislature that, in those cases where such an affirmative defense is raised, the jury shall be instructed on the permissive presumption provided in this subsection.

The Committee first proposes that a portion of the explanation of constructive possession in the drug abuse and trafficking instructions be amended to delete "knowledge of the illicit nature" of a substance as an element. Next, the Committee recommends adding several paragraphs to each drug abuse and trafficking instruction in order to reflect the affirmative defense and permissive presumption set forth in section 893.101(2)-(3), Florida Statutes (2006).[2]

*247 The Committee also proposes six new instructions with regard to various offenses involving lewd and lascivious conduct. These new instructions are based upon section 800.04, Florida Statutes (2006), entitled, "Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age."[3]

Upon consideration and with several modifications to the Committee's proposals, we hereby authorize the publication and use of the amended drug abuse and trafficking instructions and new lewd and lascivious offense instructions 11.10(a) and 11.10(b), as set forth in the appendix attached to this opinion.[4] New language is indicated by underlining, and deletions are indicated by struck-through type. We decline to authorize proposed instructions 11.10(c), 11.10(d), 11.10(e), and 11.10(f), and refer these instructions back to the Committee for further consideration.

In authorizing the publication and use of standard jury instructions, we express no opinion on their correctness and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative instructions nor contesting the legal correctness of the instructions. We further caution that the comments associated with the instructions reflect only the views of the Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability. The instructions as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when this opinion becomes final.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

25.2 DRUG ABUSE — SALE, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT

§ 893.13(1)(a) and(2)(a), Fla. Stat.

Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as "controlled substances." (Specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance.

To prove the crime of(crime charged), the State must prove the following (applicable number) elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant)
[sold]
[purchased]
[manufactured]
[delivered]
[possessed with intent to sell]
[possessed with the intent to purchase]
[possessed with intent to manufacture]
[possessed with intent to deliver]
*248 a certain substance.

2. The substance was (specific substance alleged).

Give if possession is charged.

3. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance.

Definitions. Give as applicable.

Sell.

"Sell" means to transfer or deliver something to another person in exchange for money or something of value or a promise of money or something of value.

Manufacture. § 893.02(123)(a), Fla. Stat.

"Manufacture" means the production, preparation, packaging, labeling or relabeling, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly. Manufacturing can be by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis. It can also be by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.

Deliver. § 893.02(5), Fla. Stat.

"Deliver" or "delivery" means the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship.

Possession.

To "possess" means to have personal charge of or exercise the right of ownership, management, or control over the thing possessed.

Possession may be actual or constructive.

Actual possession means:

a. the thing controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person, or

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Marken Leger v. U.S. Attorney General
101 F.4th 1295 (Eleventh Circuit, 2024)
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2018-12.
272 So. 3d 243 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2019)
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2018-04.
257 So. 3d 370 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2018)
Natalia Lorena Citron v. U.S. Attorney General
882 F.3d 1380 (Eleventh Circuit, 2018)
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2016-09
216 So. 3d 497 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2017)
Hernandez v. State
56 So. 3d 752 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2010)
Barrientos v. State
1 So. 3d 1209 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
In Re Standard Inst. in Crim. Cases No. 2008-02
998 So. 2d 1138 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2008)
J & J Electric, Inc. v. Gilbert H. Moen Co.
516 P.2d 217 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
969 So. 2d 245, 2007 WL 3101743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-standard-inst-in-crim-cases-no-2005-3-fla-2007.