In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-No. 2007-11

986 So. 2d 563, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 554, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 1237, 2008 WL 2679168
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 10, 2008
DocketSC07-2424
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 986 So. 2d 563 (In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-No. 2007-11) 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 Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-No. 2007-11, 986 So. 2d 563, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 554, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 1237, 2008 WL 2679168 (Fla. 2008).

Opinion

986 So.2d 563 (2008)

In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES — REPORT NO. 2007-11.

No. SC07-2424.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 10, 2008.

Judge Terry David Terrell, Chair, Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, First Judicial Circuit, Pensacola, Florida, for Petitioners.

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 13.1 (Burglary) and 14.1 (Theft), and requests that the Court authorize the amended standard instructions for publication and use. The Committee published the proposals for comment in The Florida Bar News prior to their submission to the Court. Having considered the Committee's report and the comments filed, we authorize the publication and use of the amended instructions as discussed below.[1]

Consistent with the Legislature's amendment to the burglary statute, section 810.02, Florida Statutes, the amendments to instruction 13.1 add the offense of burglary of an authorized emergency vehicle, a second-degree felony, as well as the first-degree felony of burglary in a county that is subject to a state of emergency declared by the Governor under chapter 252, Florida Statutes, where the conditions arising from the emergency facilitate the burglary. See ch. 2007-115, Laws of Fla. In addition, the amendments provide clarification and take into account pertinent case law.

The amendments to instruction 14.1 revise the portion of the instruction concerning degrees of the offense of theft, based upon the value of the item stolen, to present the degrees in a more logical order. Further, the revision includes additional property and values, consistent with legislative changes derived from chapters 2006-51, 2007-115, and 2007-177, Laws of Florida, and include statutory inferences and statutory definitions.

We hereby authorize the publication and use of amended instructions 13.1 (Burglary) and 14.1 (Theft), with minor modifications[2] as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. In doing so, we express no opinion on the correctness of those instructions 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 all interested *564 parties that any notes and comments associated with the instructions 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, and deleted language is struck through. The instructions as set forth in the appendix[3] shall be effective on the date that this opinion becomes final.

It is so ordered.

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

APPENDIX

13.1 BURGLARY

§ 810.02, Fla. Stat.

Give this statement of the elements if the charge is unlawful entry if the information charges entering with the intent to commit an offense:

To prove the crime of Burglary, the State must prove the following [two] [three] elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) entered a [structure] [conveyance] owned by or in the possession of (person alleged).
2. At the time of entering the [structure] [conveyance], (defendant) had the intent to commit [an offense] [ (the crime alleged) ] in that [structure] [conveyance].

The offense intended cannot be trespass or burglary.

Give element 3 only if defendant meets his or her burden of production that he or she had an invitation or license to enter, or that the premises were open to the public. See State v. Hicks, 421 So.2d 510 (Fla.1982), and State v. Waters, 436 So.2d 66 (Fla.1983).

3. [ (Defendant) was not [licensed] [invited] to enter the [structure] [conveyance].] [The premises were not open to the public at the time of the entering.]

Give if applicable.

If the [license] [invitation] to enter was obtained by (defendant's) trick or fraud or deceit, then the [license] [invitation] to enter was not valid.

Give if applicable.

If (defendant) entered premises that were open to the public, but then entered an area of the premises that [he] [she] knew was not open to the public, (defendant) committed a burglary if [he] [she] entered that non-public area with the intent to commit [an offense] [ (the crime alleged) ] in that non-public area.

Give if applicable. § 810.07 Fla. Stat.

You may infer that (defendant) had the intent to commit a crime inside a [structure] [conveyance] if the [entering] [attempted entering] of the [structure] [conveyance] was done stealthily and without the consent of the owner or occupant.

Give if applicable.

The entry necessary need not be the whole body of the defendant. It is sufficient *565 if the defendant, with the intent to commit a crime, extends any part of the [his] [her] body far enough into the [structure] [conveyance] to commit [an offense] [ (the crime alleged) ].

Give this statement of the elements if the charge is unlawfully remaining. if the information charges remaining with the intent to commit an offense:

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

1. (Defendant) had permission or consent to enter a [structure] [conveyance] owned by or in the possession of (person alleged).
2. (Defendant), after entering the [structure] [conveyance], remained therein.

Give 2a, 2b, or 2c as applicable.

a. surreptitiously and with the intent to commit [an offense] [ (the crime alleged) ] inside the [structure] [conveyance].
b. after permission to remain had been withdrawn and with the intent to commit [an offense] [ (the crime alleged) ] inside the [structure] [conveyance].
c. with the intent to commit or attempt to commit a [forcible felony] [ (the forcible felony alleged) ] inside the [structure] [conveyance].

Define the crime or forcible felony alleged.

The offense intended cannot be trespass or burglary. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08 Fla. Stat.

Proof of intent.

The intent with which an act is done is an operation of the mind and, therefore, is not always capable of direct and positive proof. It may be established by circumstantial evidence like any other fact in a case.

Even though an unlawful [entering] [remaining in] a [structure] [conveyance] is proved, if the evidence does not establish that it was done with the intent to commit [an offense] [ (the crime alleged) ], the defendant must be found not guilty of burglary.

Proof of possession of stolen property.

Proof of unexplained possession by an accused of property recently stolen by means of a burglary, unless satisfactorily explained, may justify a conviction of burglary with intent to steal that property if the circumstances of the burglary and of the possession of the stolen property, when considered in the light of all evidence in the case, convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the burglary.

Definitions; give as applicable.

§ 810.011(1), Fla. Stat.

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

Related

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2018-05.
257 So. 3d 925 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2018)
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2018-02.
256 So. 3d 1316 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2018)
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—report 2016-06
217 So. 3d 965 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2017)
In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-REPORT NO. 2015-04
190 So. 3d 614 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2016)
In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-REPORT NO. 2014-08
176 So. 3d 938 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)
McKIVER v. State
55 So. 3d 646 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
986 So. 2d 563, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 554, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 1237, 2008 WL 2679168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-standard-jury-instructions-in-criminal-cases-no-2007-11-fla-2008.