IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—REPORT 2016-10. (2017)

Supreme Court of Florida.

IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—REPORT 2016-10.

No. SC16-1884

Decided: April 13, 2017

Judge F. 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

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. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

The Committee proposes amending existing instructions: 19.1 (Bribery of a Public Servant); 19.2 (Bribery by a Public Servant); 19.3 (Unlawful Compensation or Reward to Public Servant for Official Behavior); 19.4 (Unlawful Compensation or Reward by Public Servant for Official Behavior); 19.5 (Unlawful Compensation or Reward to Public Servant for Official Behavior); 19.6 (Unlawful Compensation or Reward by Public Servant for Official Behavior); and 19.7 (Official Misconduct).¹ The changes proposed by the Committee primarily stem from the enactment of chapter 2016-151, Laws of Florida, which revised chapter 838 (Bribery; Misuse of Public Office) of the Florida Statutes. The enactment of chapter 2016-151, Laws of Florida, among other things, changed the type of mens rea necessary for a violation of chapter 838 from “corruptly” to “knowingly and intentionally.” It also amended section 838.014, Florida Statutes (2016), to include definitions for the phrases “Governmental entity” and “Public contractor.” Ch. 2016-151, § 1, Laws of Fla.

Before filing its report with the Court, the Committee published its proposals for comment. No comments were received. The Court did not republish the Committee's proposals for comment. Having considered the Committee's report, we hereby authorize for publication and use instructions 19.1 through 19.7 as proposed by the Committee.

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.

Tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time.

FOOTNOTES

1. The Committee's proposals in this case were initially filed in Case No. SC16-1184. Because the Committee's proposals contained a citation to the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in Czajkowski v. State, 178 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), review discharged, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), a case then pending before this Court, the Court severed the proposals from Case No. SC16-1184 and instructed the Committee to resubmit the proposals when the case became final.

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, POLSTON, and LAWSON, 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!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network