IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—REPORT 2016-01. (2017)

Supreme Court of Florida.

IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—REPORT 2016-01.

No. SC16-724

Decided: March 09, 2017

Judge Frederic Rand Wallis, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, Daytona Beach, Florida; and Bart Schneider, Staff Liaison, Office of the State Courts Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner Julianne M. Holt, Past President, Florida Public Defender Association, Inc., Public Defender, 13th Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida, Responding with Comments

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Committee) has submitted a report proposing amendments to seven existing standard criminal jury instructions and the addition of two new instructions. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

The Committee proposes amending existing instructions 3.6(a) (Insanity); 5.1 (Attempt to Commit Crime); 5.2 (Criminal Solicitation); 5.3 (Criminal Conspiracy); 6.6 (Attempted Manslaughter by Act); 7.7 (Manslaughter); and 8.25 (Violation of a Condition of Pretrial Release from a Domestic Violence Charge).¹ The Committee also proposes adding new instructions 3.6(p) (Abnormal Mental Condition) and 7.7(a) (Aggravated Manslaughter).

Before filing its report with the Court, the Committee published its proposals for comment. Upon consideration of the comments submitted, the Committee modified some of its proposals. The Committee did not republish its proposals.

After the Committee filed its report, the Court published the Committee's proposals for comment. A comment was received from the Florida Public Defender Association regarding existing instructions 3.6(a) and 8.25, and new instruction 3.6(p). A response was filed by the Committee.

Having considered the Committee's report, the comment filed, and the Committee's response, we hereby authorize for publication and use amended instructions 3.6(a), 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.6, 7.7, and 8.25, and new instructions 3.6(p) and 7.7(a), with the following modification. We amend the new comment to instruction 5.3 to include the phrase “renunciation remains a defense to conspiracy to commit a crime where some harm was done.” The phrase was omitted by the Committee, and its addition conforms the new comment for instruction 5.3 with the new comment added to instructions 5.1 and 5.2.

Accordingly, the instructions, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, are authorized for publication and use.² 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. New language is indicated by underlining and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type. The instructions as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when this opinion becomes final.

It is so ordered.

LAWSON, J., did not participate.

Original Proceeding – Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases

Tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time.

FOOTNOTES

1. The Committee's report initially included a proposal to amend existing instruction 28.4(a) (Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Only Damage to an Attended Vehicle or Attended Property). The proposal was subsequently withdrawn by the Committee.

2. . The amendments as reflected in the appendix are to the Criminal Jury Instructions 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.

PER CURIAM.

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

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law