192 So. 3d 1190
Fla.2016Background
- The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases submitted proposed amendments to numerous DUI/BUI, leaving-the-scene, and fleeing-or-eluding standard criminal jury instructions and proposed one new instruction (28.4(b)).
- The Committee published proposals for comment in The Florida Bar News and received three comments (FACDL on 28.4(b); Florida Public Defender Association and Public Defender Blaise Trettis on DUI/BUI instructions).
- The Committee revised proposals to clarify the definition of “impaired” in DUI/BUI instructions and added a comment addressing mens rea for new instruction 28.4(b).
- The Court exercised its jurisdiction under article V, § 2(a) of the Florida Constitution, considered the Committee’s report and comments, and authorized publication and use of the new and amended instructions.
- The Court declined to resolve the substantive mens rea/legal-duty question raised by FACDL about the underlying misdemeanor hit-and-run statute in these rule‑making proceedings, noting such issues require an actual case or controversy.
Issues
| Issue | Committee's Argument | Commenters' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to adopt the Committee’s proposed amendments and new instruction(s) | Amend and authorize updated instructions (clarify impaired; add 28.4(b)) | Some commenters urged changes/clarifications (FACDL on mens rea; FPDA/Trettis on DUI/BUI language) | Court authorized the proposed amendments and new instruction for publication and use |
| Definition of “impaired” in DUI/BUI instructions | Clarify the term to better guide juries | FPDA and Trettis suggested clarifications to avoid ambiguity | Committee revised language; Court approved the clarified definition |
| Mens rea / knowledge requirement for new 28.4(b) (unattended vehicle/property) | Provide instruction with comment noting open legal question | FACDL argued statute imposes an affirmative duty implying knowledge of involvement and raised mens rea concerns | Court authorized 28.4(b) but declined to resolve the mens rea/duty issue here, reserving it for a live case or controversy |
| Whether authorization forecloses future challenges | N/A (Committee sought authorization) | Some may seek further or alternative instructions or contest correctness | Court emphasized authorization does not express opinion on correctness and does not foreclose requests for additional/alternative instructions or legal challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. State, 783 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (definition and use of “impaired” in DUI context)
- Tyner v. State, 805 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (impairment instruction and when impairment is moot if BAC charge proven)
- State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000) (treatment of prior DUI/BUI convictions in proving enhanced offenses)
- Mancuso v. State, 652 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1995) (interpretation of leaving-the-scene statutes and mens rea contexts)
- State v. Dorsett, 158 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 2015) (statutory interpretation relevant to leaving-the-scene offenses)
- Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1992) (related guidance on impairment instruction usage)
- Patterson v. State, 512 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (definition of “reasonable assistance" under leaving-the-scene instructions)