In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report No. 2007-5

982 So. 2d 1160, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 313, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 886, 2008 WL 2051068
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMay 15, 2008
DocketNo. SC07-1420
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 982 So. 2d 1160 (In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report No. 2007-5) 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 No. 2007-5, 982 So. 2d 1160, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 313, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 886, 2008 WL 2051068 (Fla. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration thirteen proposed amended or new Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases.1 The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Committee) proposes Standard Jury Instructions 10.19 (Use of a Self-Defense Weapon) [1161]*1161(amended); 11.13 (Voyeurism) (amended); 11.13(a)-(b) (Video Voyeurism) (new); 11.13(e)-(d) (Video Voyeurism Dissemination) (new); 11.13(e)-(g) (Commercial Video Voyeurism) (new); 14.7 (False Verification of Ownership or False Identification to a Pawnbroker) (new); 15.1 (Robbery) (amended); 15.2 (Carjacking) (amended); and 15.3 (Home Invasion Robbery) (amended).

The proposals were published for comment by the Court in the September 15, 2007, edition of The Florida Bar News. Three comments were received. In response to the comments, the Committee revised several of its proposals.

Having considered the Committee’s report, the comments that were filed, and the Committee’s response to those comments, we authorize the publication and use of all of the amended and new instructions.2 The instructions, as authorized, are set forth in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underlining, and deleted language is struck through. In authorizing the instructions for publication and use, 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 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. The instructions as set forth in the appendix3 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

10.19 USE OF A SELF-DEFENSE WEAPON

§ 790.054, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of «Using a sSelf-dDefense «¡Weapon against a law enforcement officer, the sState must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) intentionally used a [self-defense chemical spray] [nonlethal stun gun] [nonlethal electric weapon] [remote dart firing stun gun] against (victim).

2. (Victim) was at the time a law enforcement officer.

[1162]*11623. (Defendant) knew (victim) was a law enforcement officer.

4. At the time of the incident, (victim) was engaged in the lawful performance of [his] [her] duties.

The court now instructs you that (name of official position of victim designated in charge) is a law enforcement officer. Do not read the name of the victim in this part of the instruction.

Lesser Included Offenses

USE OF A SELF-DEFENSE WEAPON § 790.054

CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO.

None

Battery 784.03(l)(a) 8.3

Comment

This instruction is based on section 790.054, Florida Statutes (1997). In giving this instruction, do not refer to the victim by name in the last sentence of the instruction. That sentence must state the class of officers to which the victim belongs, e.g., probation officer, correctional officer. See Wright v. State, 586 So.2d 1025[1024] (Fla.1991).

This instruction was adopted in 2000 [765 So.2d 692] and amended in 2008.

11.13 VOYEURISM

§ 810.14, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Voyeurism, the «State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) secretly

[observed]

[photographed]

[filmed]

[videotaped]

[recorded]

(victim).

2. The (act alleged) was done with a [lewd] [lascivious] [indecent] intent.

3. When (victim) was [observed] [photographed] — [filmed]—[videotaped] [recorded] — [he] [she] was in a [dwelling] [structure] [conveyance] in which [he] [she] had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The words lewd, lascivious, and indecent mean the same thing, a wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual intent on the part of the person doing the act.

Definitions._

“Dwelling” means a building [or conveyance] of any kind, including any attached porch, whether such building [or conveyance] is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, together with the enclosed space of ground and outbuildings immediately surrounding it.

“Structure” means any kind of building, either temporary or permanent, that has a roof over it, together with the enclosed space of ground and outbuildings immediately surrounding it.

“Conveyance” means any motor vehicle, ship, vessel, railroad car, trailer, aircraft or sleeping car.

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

This instruction is based on § 810.14-,■ Fla-,-Stat;~(Supp-.4998-)- — It is error to inform the jury of a prior conviction before a determination of guilt of the charged offense. Therefore, do not read the allegation of prior conviction or send the information or indictment into the jury room. If the defendant is convicted of the current [1163]*1163charge, the historical fact of a previous conviction shall be determined separately. State v. Harris, 356 So.2d 315 (Fla.1978). beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury in a bifurcated proceeding. State v. Harbaugh, 754 So.2d 691 (Fla.2000).

This instruction was adopted in 2000 [765 So.2d 692], and amended in 2008.

11.13(a) VIDEO VOYEURISM

§ 810.145(2)(a) or (b), Fla. Stat.

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

Give la or lb as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. intentionally [used] [or] [installed] an imaging device to secretly [view] [broadcast] [or] [record] (victim) for [his] [her] own [amusement] [entertainment] [sexual arousal] [gratification] [or] [profit] [or] [for the purpose of degrading or abusing (victim) ].

b. intentionally permitted [the use] [or] [installation] of an imaging device to secretly [view] [broadcast] [or] [record] (victim) for the [amusement] [entertainment] [sexual arousal] [gratification] [or] [profit] [of another or on behalf of another].

2. (Victim) was thereby [viewed] [broadcast] [or] [recorded] at a time when the (victim) was [dressing] [undressing] [or] [privately exposing [his] [her] body].

3. At the place and time when (victim) was [viewed] [broadcast] [or] [recorded] [he] [she] had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

4. The [viewing] [broadcast] [or] [recording] of (victim) was without the knowledge and consent of (victim).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
982 So. 2d 1160, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 313, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 886, 2008 WL 2051068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-standard-jury-instructions-in-criminal-cases-report-no-2007-5-fla-2008.