In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases submitted proposed amendments to several Florida criminal jury instructions (including 2.08, 3.13, and a series of § 817.568 identity-fraud related instructions) and requested authorization to publish and use them.
The Committee published proposals in The Florida Bar News and received no public comments; minor post-publication edits were made to a few instructions.
Major textual changes include: (1) adding the sentence "If you have voted, do not disclose the actual vote in the note" to instructions on submitting the case to the jury (2.08 and 3.13); (2) removing enhanced-penalty language from the judge-directed text in certain identity-fraud instructions and relocating it to the Comment section, noting a special instruction/ interrogatory is required if enhancements under § 817.568(5) or (10) are charged; and (3) several other updates to track statutory language and specify definitions.
The Court reviewed the Committee report and authorized the amended instructions for publication and use, stating no opinion on their legal correctness and preserving the right to propose alternatives or contest correctness.
The amended instructions become effective when the opinion is final; the appendix to the opinion contains the authorized instruction texts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to add a juror-note nondisclosure sentence to verdict/submission instructions	Committee: add sentence to prevent disclosure of actual vote in a note to avoid judicial misinteraction	No opposing submissions were received	Court authorized adding: “If you have voted, do not disclose the actual vote in the note.”
How to present enhanced-penalty matters in identity-fraud instructions	Committee: remove enhancement text from judge-facing instruction and note in Comment that special instruction/interrogatory required if enhancements charged	No opposing submissions were received	Court authorized relocating enhancement language to Comment and instructing that special instructions/interrogatories are necessary when enhancements under § 817.568(5) or (10) are alleged
Conformity of instruction language to statutory definitions and offense elements	Committee: update instructions to track statutory wording, definitions, and elder/disabled/public-servant categories	No opposing submissions were received	Court authorized the substantive and definitional updates as reflected in the appendix
Publication and use authorization, and scope of Court’s endorsement	Committee sought formal authorization for publication/use	No opposing submissions were received	Court authorized publication and use but expressly declined to endorse correctness; parties may propose alternatives or contest legal correctness

Scoggins v. State, 691 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting that disclosure of numerical jury divisions can prompt inappropriate judicial interaction and supporting nondisclosure guidance in jury-communication instructions)