IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—REPORT 2018-10. (2018)

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to the standard jury instructions. The Committee asks that the Court authorize amended standard instructions 10.20 ( [Care] [Custody] [Possession] [Control] of [a Firearm] [Ammunition] While a Final Injunction for [Domestic Violence] [Stalking] [Cyberstalking] is in Effect), 14.8 (Unlawful Possession of a Stolen [Credit] [Debit] Card), 16.11 ( [Possession] [Control] [Intentional Viewing] of Material Including Sexual Conduct by a Child), 20.18(a) (Unlawful Possession of the Personal Identification Information of Another Person), 22.10 (Possessing a Lottery Ticket), 22.11 (Possessing Rundown Sheets, Etc.), and 22.15 ( [Manufacturing] [Owning] [Storing] [Keeping] [Possession of] [Permitting the Operation of] [Selling] [Leasing] [Transporting] a Slot Machine) for publication and use.¹

The Committee filed its report after publishing the proposals in The Florida Bar News. No comments were received by the Committee. We authorize for publication and use instructions 14.8, 16.11, and 20.18 as proposed. Instruction 22.15 is authorized for publication and use as proposed, with a correction to the title and statutory citations, and instructions 10.20, 22.10, and 22.11 are authorized for publication and use as modified. The more significant amendments to the instructions are discussed below.

First, consistent with this Court's decision in In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report 2017-03, 238 So.3d 182, 183 (Fla. 2018), the concept of “possession” is added to each of the instructions and prior language is deleted.

Next, with regard to instruction 10.20, we amend the paragraph defining “firearm” to read as follows: “[The term ‘firearm’ does not include an antique firearm unless the antique firearm is used in the commission of another crime.]” However, without explanation for the proposal, we decline to delete the definition for “care” and “custody,” which terms are included in the statutory provision defining the offense of “[p]ossession of firearm or ammunition prohibited when person is subject to an injunction against committing acts of domestic violence, stalking, or cyberstalking.” See § 790.233(1), Fla. Stat (2018).

Lastly, in instructions 22.10, 22.11, and 22.15, on our own motion, we replace the references to a repealed statute, section 849.161, with section 546.10, Florida Statutes. See ch. 2015-93, §§ 1, 3, Laws of Fla. In addition, in instruction 22.15, we also correct the citation to section 849.094(8)(b), Florida Statutes, to properly cite for the proposition that “[c]ompliance with the rules of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is not a defense to a charge of Possession of a Slot Machine or Device.”

Having considered the Committee's report, we authorize the amended instructions as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, for publication and use.² New language is indicated by underlining, and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type. 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. 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. The instructions as set forth in the appendix shall become effective when this opinion becomes final.

It is so ordered.

APPENDIX

FOOTNOTES

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

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.

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