In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2017-01

228 So. 3d 87, 2017 WL 4546149
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 12, 2017
DocketSC17-1438
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 So. 3d 87 (In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2017-01) 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-Report 2017-01, 228 So. 3d 87, 2017 WL 4546149 (Fla. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to the standard jury instructions, and asks that the Court authorize the amended standard instructions for publication and use. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

The Committee proposes amending the following standard criminal jury instructions: 3.6(o) (Transferred Intent); 11.17(a) (Soliciting a [Child] [Person Believed by the Defendant to be a Child] for Unlawful Sexual Conduct Using Computer Services or Devices); 11.17(b) (Soliciting a Parent, Legal Guardian, or Custodian of a Child for Unlawful Sexual Conduct Using Computer Services or Devices); 11.17(c) (Traveling to Meet a Minor); and 11.17(d) (Traveling to Meet a Minor Facilitated by Parent, Legal Guardian, or Custodian). The Committee published its proposals for comment. No comments were received by the Committee. The Court did not publish the proposals after they were filed..

Having considered the Committee’s report, we amend the standard jury instructions as proposed by the Committee, with a purely technical correction to instruction 3.6(o), and authorize them for publication and use. 1

We note the following. significant changes to the jury instructions as. amended. First, with regard to Instruction 3.6(o), the phrase “but instead” is replaced with “and in the process,” the word “the” is replaced with “any,” and the word “actually” is removed from the instruction. The Committee explains that these changes are made so that the instruction will be suitable for use in all cases in which it applies. The Committee has also updated the Comment section of the instruction with relevant case law pertaining to the doctrine of transferred intent.

.Next, with regard to Instructions 11.17(a), (b), (c), and (d), the crime of Unlawful Use of a Two-Way Communications Device is added, as a category two lesser included offense. With regard to Instruction 11.17(b), the phrase “Legal Guardian, or Custodian” is added to the first sentence of the instruction to mirror its title and the language of section 847.0135(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2017).

The amended criminal jury instructions, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, are hereby authorized for publication and use. 2 New language is indicated by underlining, and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type. In authorizing the publication and use of these 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 all interested parties that any 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. The instructions as set forth in the appendix shall be effé’ctive when this opinion becomes final.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

3.6(o) TRANSFERRED INTENT

If a person intends to [hit] [strike] [shoot] a person, but insteadand in the process [hits] [strikes] [shoots] a different person, the law transfers the intent to [hit] [strike] [shoot] from the person who was aimed at to theany person who was actually [hit] [struck] [shot].

Comments

See State v. Brady, 745 So.2d 954 (Fla. 1999) and Nelson v. State, 853 So.2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Also, in Mordica v. State, 618 So.2d 301, 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the First District rejected the contention that the doctrine of transferred intent is applicable only where the defendant entirely misses the intended victim and hits the unintended victim.

The doctrine of transferred intent may not apply to the crime of Attempted First Degree Murder. See Bell v. State, 768 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)(stating that if the issue is whether the defendant attempted to murder multiple victims, then such specific intent is not subject to transfer but rather such intent should be independently evaluated as to each victim); but see Frederick v. State, 93 So.3d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding that the giving of a transferred intent instruction was not fundamental error because defendant was not charged with attempting to murder multiple victims).

This instruction was adopted in 2013 [131 So.3d 720] and amended in 2017.

11.17(a) SOLICITING A [CHILD] [PERSON BELIEVED BY THE DEFENDANT TO BE A CHILD] FOR UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONDUCT USING COMPUTER SERVICES OR DEVICES

§ 847.0135(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Soliciting a [Child] [Person Believed by the Defendant to be a Child] for Unlawful Sexual Conduct Using Computer Services or Devices, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) knowingly used a[n] [computer on-line service] [Internet service] [local bulletin board service] [device capable of electronic data storage or transmission] to contact (victim).
2. (Victim) was a child or a person believed by the defendant to be a child.
3. During that contact, (defendant) [seduced] [solicited] [lured] [enticed] [attempted to [seduce] [solicit] [lure] [entice]] (victim) to [commit (any illegal act as charged in the indictment or information under chapter 794, 800, or 827) ] [or] [engage in (other unlawful sexual conduct with a child or with a person believed by the defendant to be a child) ].

The mere fact that an undercover operative or law enforcement officer was involved in the detection and investigation of this offense shall not constitute a defense from prosecution.

Enhanced penalty. Give if applicable.

If you find (defendant) guilty of Soliciting a Child for Unlawful Sexual Conduct Using Computer Services or Devices, you must also determine whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that during the contact, (defendant) misrepresented [his] [her] age to [ (victim) ] [the person believed by thé defendant to be a child].

Definitions.

A “child” means any person, whose identity is known or unknown, less than 18 years of age.

Give the folloiving definitions if applicable. Additional definitions can be added as applicable depending on the nature of the alleged illegal conduct. See §, 8^7.001, 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 2018-07.
259 So. 3d 743 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 So. 3d 87, 2017 WL 4546149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-standard-jury-instructions-in-criminal-cases-report-2017-01-fla-2017.