IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—REPORT 2017-11. (2018)

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions 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 amending the following existing instructions: 8.3 (Battery); 8.4 (Aggravated Battery); 8.4(a) (Aggravated Battery (Pregnant Victim)); 8.5 (Felony Battery); 8.11 (Battery on Law Enforcement Officer, Firefighter, Etc.); 8.13 (Aggravated Battery on Law Enforcement Officer, Firefighter, Etc.); 8.14 (Aggravated Battery on Person 65 Years of Age or Older); 8.16 (Battery on Person 65 Years of Age or Older); and 8.20 (Battery on Facility Employee). No comments were received by the Committee pertaining to the proposals. The Court did not publish the proposals after they were filed. We hereby authorize the amended instructions 8.3, 8.4(a), 8.5, 8.11, 8.16, and 8.20 for publication and use as set forth in the appendix to this opinion.¹ The more significant amendments to the instructions are discussed below.

Instructions 8.3, 8.4(a), 8.5, 8.11, and 8.16 are amended to clarify that a battery may occur even if the defendant does not touch the actual body of a victim, citing Clark v. State, 783 So.2d 967 (Fla. 2001).

In addition, instruction 8.3 (Battery) is modified to add a new paragraph stating that if the reclassification in section 784.03(2), Florida Statutes (2018), was charged and the jury found the defendant guilty of battery, then the jury must further determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was previously convicted of battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery.

Next, instruction 8.16 (Battery on Person 65 Years of Age or Older) is updated to clarify that it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant knew or had reason to know the age of the victim, citing section 784.08(2), Florida Statutes (2018).

Last, instruction 8.20 (Battery on Facility Employee) is amended to reflect the language in section 784.078, Florida Statutes (2018) (Battery of facility employee by throwing, tossing, or expelling certain fluids or materials). Accordingly, instruction 8.20 is amended to remove the “intentionally touched or struck” language that is used in other battery statutes, but is not found in section 784.078, Florida Statutes. Instruction 8.20 is also amended to replace “had reason to know” with “reasonably should have known.” Further, instruction 8.20 is retitled from “Battery on Facility Employee” to “Battery on Facility Employee (Throwing, Tossing, or Expelling Certain Fluids or Materials).”

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

It is so ordered.

APPENDIX

FOOTNOTES

1.   We decline to authorize the amendments to instructions 8.4, 8.13, and 8.14 at this time. Instead, we have referred those proposed amendments back to the Committee to be considered in light of Shepard v. State, 259 So.3d 701, 2018 WL 5660550 (Fla. Nov. 1, 2018).

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.