In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-REPORT NO. 2015-08
194 So. 3d 1007
| Fla. | 2016Background
- The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases submitted proposed amendments to multiple standard criminal jury instructions and sought the Court’s authorization.
- The Committee published proposals for comment in The Florida Bar News; no comments were received; the Court did not publish the filed proposals.
- The Committee sought amendments to many instructions; the Court authorized amendments to instructions 8.3 (Battery), 21.16 (Falsely Personating an Officer), 29.20 (Abuse of an Elderly Person/A Disabled Adult), 29.21 (Aggravated Abuse of an Elderly Person/A Disabled Adult), and 29.22 (Neglect of an Elderly Person/A Disabled Adult).
- The Court declined to authorize amendments to instructions 23.1–23.7 and 28.11 in these proceedings because those proposals would resolve a substantive legal question (treating a statutory sentencing enhancement as an element), which must be decided in an actual case or controversy.
- The amended instructions are attached in an appendix; new language is underlined and deletions are struck through; the Court authorized their publication and use but expressly did not opine on their legal correctness.
Issues
| Issue | Committee's Argument | Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should authorize the Committee’s proposed amendments to listed criminal jury instructions | Committee: Amendments reflect statutory language and clarify elements/definitions for jury use | Court: Authorization appropriate for routine instruction updates unless a proposal raises a substantive legal question | Authorized amendments to instructions 8.3, 21.16, 29.20, 29.21, and 29.22 for publication and use |
| Whether the Court should use the instruction-authorization proceeding to resolve a substantive question about treating a statutory sentencing enhancement as an element | Committee: Proposed changes to instructions 23.1–23.7 and 28.11 presumably implement statutory interpretation (implicit) | Court: Deciding substantive constitutional or element-vs-factor questions requires an actual case or controversy; not appropriate in this procedural context | Declined to authorize the contested amendments in these proceedings and reserved the issue for a case or controversy |
| Whether the Court’s authorization implies endorsement of legal correctness | Committee: N/A (seeking authorization) | Court: Authorization does not equal endorsement; parties may still request alternative instructions or challenge correctness | Court expressly disclaimed any opinion on correctness and permitted further challenges or alternative requests |
| Effective date and resolution of discrepancies between website and published texts | Committee: Provide updated appendix and website versions | Court: Published opinion controls for discrepancies | Amended instructions effective when opinion becomes final; resolve discrepancies by reference to the Court’s published opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000) (prior-conviction proof for battery enhancement)
- Patterson v. State, 512 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (definitions of "willfully" and related intent terms)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 122 So. 3d 302 (Fla. 2013) (prior authorization of specified criminal jury instructions)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 131 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2013) (prior authorization and amendment of elder/disabled-adult related instructions)