In Re Standard Instruct. in Cr. Cases No. 2007-10

997 So. 2d 403, 2008 WL 5194454
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedDecember 11, 2008
DocketSC07-2324
StatusPublished
Cited by43 cases

This text of 997 So. 2d 403 (In Re Standard Instruct. in Cr. Cases No. 2007-10) 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 Instruct. in Cr. Cases No. 2007-10, 997 So. 2d 403, 2008 WL 5194454 (Fla. 2008).

Opinion

997 So.2d 403 (2008)

In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES — REPORT NO. 2007-10.

No. SC07-2324.

Supreme Court of Florida.

December 11, 2008.

Judge Terry David Terrell, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, First Judicial Circuit, Pensacola, FL, and Judge Bradford L. Thomas, First District Court of Appeal, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.

Stephen Krosschell of Goodman and Nekvasil, P.A., Clearwater, FL, and Bob Dillinger, Public Defender, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Clearwater, FL, as Opponents.

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases 7.7 — Manslaughter; 8.9 — Culpable Negligence; and 6.6 — Attempted Voluntary Manslaughter, and requests that the Court authorize the amended standard instructions for publication and use.[1] The Committee published the proposals for comment in The Florida Bar News prior to submission to the Court. Having considered the Committee's report and the comments filed, as well as oral arguments presented to the Court on June 13, 2008, we do not approve the Committee's proposals as submitted. We do, however, authorize for publication and use instruction 7.7 as modified.

DISCUSSION

The Committee proposed amending instruction 7.7, Manslaughter, by replacing the term "intentionally" with "knowingly or consciously" to remove the requirement of an intentional act that caused or resulted in the victim's death. We do not approve the Committee's proposal. Rather, we modify instruction 7.7 as follows:

In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act which caused death. See Hall v. State, 951 So.2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

We authorize publication and use of the instruction as modified.

In its proposal amending instruction 8.9, Culpable Negligence, the Committee suggested language that appears to not be in accord with our decision in State v. Greene, 348 So.2d 3 (Fla.1977). In Greene, we upheld the constitutionality of the culpable negligence statute, section 784.05, Florida Statutes, stating that "reckless indifference or grossly careless disregard of the safety of others is necessary to prove `culpable negligence.'" Id. at 4. Greene relied upon Russ v. State, 140 Fla. 217, 191 So. 296 (1939), where we defined "culpable negligence" as

a gross and flagrant character, evincing reckless disregard of human life or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects; or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of indifference to consequences; or such wantonness or recklessness or grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or that reckless indifference to the rights of others, which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them.

Greene, 348 So.2d at 4 (quoting Russ, 191 So. at 298). The Committee's proposal *404 would remove from the instruction's definition of "culpable negligence" the terms "reckless" and "wanton." For these reasons, we do not approve the proposal.

The Committee also proposed eliminating the intent element from instruction 6.6, Attempted Voluntary Manslaughter, consistent with its proposal to amend the manslaughter instruction. We do not approve the Committee's proposal for instruction 6.6 as well. See Taylor v. State, 444 So.2d 931, 934 (Fla.1983) ("[A] verdict for attempted manslaughter can be rendered only if there is proof that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit an unlawful act.").

PUBLICATION AND USE

We hereby authorize the publication and use of amended instruction 7.7 — Manslaughter, as modified and set forth in the appendix to this opinion. In doing so, we express no opinion on the correctness of this instruction and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative instructions nor contesting the legal correctness of the instruction. We further caution all interested parties that any notes and comments associated with the instruction reflect only the opinion of the Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability. New language is indicated by underlining. The instruction as set forth in the appendix[2] shall be effective when this opinion becomes final.

It is so ordered.

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

CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., did not participate.

APPENDIX

7.7 MANSLAUGHTER

§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.

2. a. (Defendant) intentionally caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).

However, the defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide as I have previously explained those terms.

Give only if 2(a) alleged and proved, and manslaughter is being defined as a lesser included offense of first degree premeditated murder.

In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act *405 which caused death. See Hall v. State, 951 So.2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Give only if 2b alleged and proved.

To "procure" means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.

Give only if 2c alleged and proved.

I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

§ 782.07(2)-(4), Fla. Stat. Enhanced penalty if 2c alleged and proved. Give a, b, or c, as applicable.

If you find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, you must then determine whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a.

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

Related

Arnold Jerome Knight v. State of Florida
267 So. 3d 38 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2017-06.
236 So. 3d 282 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2018)
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—report 2016-01
213 So. 3d 680 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2017)
Roberts v. State
168 So. 3d 252 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Figueroa v. State
165 So. 3d 802 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Molina v. State
150 So. 3d 1280 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Wilson Pierre, Jr. v. State
141 So. 3d 711 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Ramon Pimental v. Florida Department of Corrections
560 F. App'x 942 (Eleventh Circuit, 2014)
Moore v. State
114 So. 3d 486 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Daniels v. State
121 So. 3d 409 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2013)
Cooper v. State
83 So. 3d 998 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Page v. State
81 So. 3d 525 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
PHARISIEN v. State
74 So. 3d 156 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Bates v. State
100 So. 3d 69 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Sanders v. State
74 So. 3d 1100 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Paul v. State
63 So. 3d 828 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Houston v. State
56 So. 3d 908 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Davis v. State
56 So. 3d 128 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Carter v. State
53 So. 3d 1248 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Pryor v. State
48 So. 3d 159 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
997 So. 2d 403, 2008 WL 5194454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-standard-instruct-in-cr-cases-no-2007-10-fla-2008.