In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases - Report 2018-06

CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedDecember 20, 2018
DocketSC18-1295
StatusPublished

This text of In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases - Report 2018-06 (In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases - Report 2018-06) 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 2018-06, (Fla. 2018).

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida

No. SClS-1295

IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES_ REPORT 2018-06.

December 20, 2018 PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury lnstructions 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 amendments to four existing standard criminal jury instructions: 15.l (Robbery); 15.2 (Carjacking); 15.3 (Home-lnvasion Robbery); and 26.9 (Money Laundering). The proposals Were published by the Committee in The Florida Bar News; one comment Was received from the Florida Public Defender Association (FPDA) concerning the proposed amendments to instructions 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3. The Committee made one of the changes

proposed by the FPDA prior to filing its report With the Court, but declined to

make the other proposed change. The proposals Were not published by the Court after having been filed by the Committee.

Having considered the Committee’s report and the FPDA comment, We amend the standard jury instructions as proposed by the Committee, With one technical correction to a comment, and authorize them for publication and use. We discuss the more significant amendments belovv.

First, nonsubstantive revisions are made to several of the elements in instructions 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3 to improve readability or better track statutory language for the offenses covered by those instructions. Additionally, instructions 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3 are amended to replace “the” before “victim” With “that” or “a” to replace “victim” With the alleged victim’s name throughout the instructions to avoid the trial court’s accidentally referring to the alleged victim as a “victim.” Statutory citations are also added above various definitions and paragraphs throughout these three instructions. Further, a bracketed sentence is added to the “Force” section of these instructions reading: “The law does not require the force, violence, assault, or putting in fear to be exerted against the victim from Whom the property Was taken if the force, violence, assault, or putting in fear Was exerted against another in the course of the taking.” A citation to Thomas v. State, 36 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), is added above that paragraph in each of those three

instructions.

lnstructions 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3 are also amended to add a definition of “great bodily harm” stating that “ ‘Great bodily harm’ means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor, or moderate harm, and as such does not include mere bruises.” A citation to Wheeler v. State, 203 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), is added above that definition in each of those instructions. New paragraphs are added to the comments section of instructions 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3, and an existing paragraph in the comments section of each of those instructions is revised. However, we 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.

Next, the crime of resisting a merchant is added as a category-two lesser- included offense for carjacking in instruction 15.2.

With regard to instruction 26.9, several of the elements of the crime money laundering are revised to better track statutory language governing that offense. Additionally, a last element is added reading: “The money or property involved in the financial transaction exceeded $300 in any lZ-month period.” This amendment is made to address language found in section 896.101(5), Florida Statutes (2018). Further, a paragraph is added to the instruction providing: “A[n] (name of the specified unlawful activity in § 895.02(8)(a)(l.-50. alleged) consists of (give

elements of the specified unlawful activity alleged). (Ifapplicable, also explain

attempt, conspiracy, solicitation, coercion, and/or intimidation to commit the specified unlawfle activity.)”

Next, the phrase “virtual currency” is added to the definition of “monetary instruments” in instruction 26.9 to track recent statutory amendments, see ch. 2017-155, §12, at 5, Laws of Fla., and a definition of “virtual currency” based on section 896.101(2)@), Florida Statutes (2018), is added to the instruction. A lesser- included offense table is added to the instruction and contains second- and third- degree money laundering as category-one lesser-included offenses for first-degree money laundering. Last, a paragraph is added to the instruction directing the jury, if it found the defendant guilty of money laundering, to determine whether the transaction involved more than $300 but less than $20,000, $20,000 or more but less than $100,000, or $100,000 or more during any lZ-month period, to determine the felony degree of the offense.

The amended criminal jury instructions, as set forth in the appendix to this

opinion, are hereby authorized for publication and use.1 New language is indicated

l. The amendments as reflected in the appendix are to the Criminal Jury lnstructions as they appear on the Court’s website at www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml. We recognize that there may be minor discrepancies between the instructions as they appear on the website and the published versions of the instructions. Any discrepancies as to instructions authorized for publication and use after October 25, 2007, should be resolved by reference to the published opinion of this Court authorizing the instruction.

by underlining, and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type. ln 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. The instructions as set forth in the appendix shall become effective when this opinion becomes final.

lt is so ordered.

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

ANY MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION MUST BE FlLED ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 27, 2018. A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION MAY BE FlLED ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 2, 2019. NOT FINAL UNTIL THIS TIME PERIOD EXPIRES TO FlLE A REHEARING/CLARIFICATION MOTION AND, lF FlLED, DETERMINED.

Original Proceedings _ Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury lnstructions in Criminal Cases

Judge F. Rand Wallis, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury lnstructions in Criminal Cases, Daytona Beach, Florida; and Bart Schneider, Staff

Liaison, Office of the State Courts Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Petitioner

APPENDIX

15.1 ROBBERY § 812.13, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Robbery, the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

l. (Defendant) took [the| |a| |an| (money or property described in charge) from the person or custody of (person alleged).

2. Force, violence, assault, or putting in fear Was used in the course of the taking.

3. The property taken Was of some value.

4. The taking Was with the intent to permanently or temporarily

[deprive (victim) of [his] [her] right to the property or any benefit from it] [appropriate the property of (victim) to [his] [her] own use or to the use of any person not entitled to it].

Definitions.

Assault. § 784.0]]L Fla. Stat.

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

Related

Thomas v. State
36 So. 3d 853 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Sanders v. State
944 So. 2d 203 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2006)
Stuckey v. State
972 So. 2d 918 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Jacobs v. State
41 So. 3d 1004 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
The Florida Bar Re: Standard Jury Instructions Criminal Cases
477 So. 2d 985 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Gian-Grasso v. State
899 So. 2d 392 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
In Re Stan. Jury Instr. in Criminal Cases
543 So. 2d 1205 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1989)
Smithson v. State
689 So. 2d 1226 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Standard Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases
697 So. 2d 84 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
Rasheem Diquoine Dubose v. State of Florida
210 So. 3d 641 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2017)
Gordon v. State
219 So. 3d 189 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Enfinger v. State
123 So. 3d 535 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2012)
Medrano v. State
199 So. 3d 413 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Wheeler v. State
203 So. 3d 1007 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Spencer v. State
71 So. 3d 901 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
DeJesus v. State
98 So. 3d 105 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (95-2)
665 So. 2d 212 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report No. 2007-5
982 So. 2d 1160 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases - Report 2018-06, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-standard-jury-instructions-in-criminal-cases-report-2018-06-fla-2018.