In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases submitted proposed amendments and new criminal jury instructions; the Court exercised jurisdiction under art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
The Committee proposed amendments to Instructions 10.9, 10.10, 13.1, 21.7 and a new instruction 8.22(a) reflecting 2016 statutory changes (ch. 2016-156, Laws of Fla.).
Two defense organizations (Florida Public Defenders Association and Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) commented on the proposals for 8.22(a), 10.9, and 10.10; the Committee did not change its proposals in response.
The Court authorized instructions 13.1 (Burglary) and 21.7 (Giving False Name or Identification) as proposed, and authorized 8.22(a), 10.9, and 10.10 with modifications.
Key modifications: (1) add an instruction that the State must prove the defendant knew the threatened person was within the protected class under § 836.12(2); (2) replace the Committee’s original “inference provision” in 10.9 and 10.10 with statutory-conforming language that knowledge of a false report is prima facie evidence of intent to deceive.
The Court emphasized that authorization for publication does not express an opinion on legal correctness and does not preclude requests for alternative instructions or challenges to correctness.

Issue	Committee / State Argument	Commenters / Defense Argument	Held
Whether to authorize new instruction 8.22(a) implementing § 836.12(2) threat misdemeanor	Adopt instruction tracking statute as proposed	Commenters raised concerns (scope, mens rea) but Committee declined changes	Court authorized 8.22(a) but added explicit jury instruction that the State must prove defendant knew the person was in the protected class
Mens rea wording for protected-class knowledge in 8.22(a)	Committee initially proposed language; intended to reflect statute	Commenters argued clarity needed that defendant knew the victim’s status	Court modified instruction to require proof the defendant knew victim was within protected class (e.g., law enforcement, judge, family member)
Whether to retain Committee’s "inference provision" in 10.9/10.10 regarding intent to deceive	Committee proposed an inference provision (original formulation)	Commenters questioned formulation; alignment with statutory text required	Court replaced Committee’s provision with statutory language: proof that a person knowingly made a false report is prima facie evidence of intent to deceive/mislead/ misinform any person
Authorization of amendments to existing instructions 13.1 and 21.7	Committee proposed amendments to update language and elements	Commenters did not prevent authorization	Court authorized 13.1 and 21.7 as proposed (no modification)

Sanders v. State, 944 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2006) (discusses lesser-included offense analysis and jury instruction practice)
Carle v. State, 983 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (addresses relation between misdemeanor and related offenses in instruction context)
State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000) (requires bifurcated proceeding before jury on prior convictions when felony enhancement alleged)
Gian-Grasso v. State, 899 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (permits consideration of multiple lesser-included offenses in certain compounded-offense contexts)
Wright v. State, 586 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1991) (instruction must state class of officer rather than the officer’s name)