211 So. 3d 995
Fla.2017Background
- The Supreme Court of Florida considered a report from the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases proposing amendments to several standard criminal jury instructions.
- The Committee published the proposals for comment in The Florida Bar News; no comments were received.
- The Court authorized amended instructions 7.8 (DUI Manslaughter), 7.8(a) (Boating DUI Manslaughter), 9.1 (Kidnapping), 9.2 (False Imprisonment), 18.3 (False Information to Law Enforcement), and 28.18 (Failure to Obey Lawful Order) for publication and use, with minor statutory-citation corrections to instructions 7.8 and 28.18.
- The Court declined to authorize the Committee’s proposed amendment to instruction 20.18(a) (possession of another's personal identification information), because the proposal substantively altered definitions of possession without a case or controversy showing the current instruction is deficient.
- The Court emphasized that authorization for publication does not express an opinion on correctness, does not preclude requests for alternative instructions, and that Committee comments do not bind the Court.
- The amended instructions were attached in an appendix and become effective when the opinion is final.
Issues
| Issue | Committee's Argument | Court/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to authorize proposed amendments to specified jury instructions | Amendments update, simplify, and correct instructions (7.8, 7.8(a), 9.1, 9.2, 18.3, 20.18(a), 28.18) for clarity and correctness | Court must review and decide authorization; ensure statutory citations accurate and avoid substantive changes absent case/controversy | Authorized amendments to 7.8, 7.8(a), 9.1, 9.2, 18.3, 28.18 (with citation fixes); declined 20.18(a) |
| Whether to correct statutory citations in 7.8 and 28.18 | Committee included citations (some incorrect) | Court identified incorrect references to the definition of “vehicle” | Court ordered citation revisions to reference the correct statute |
| Whether to replace detailed possession explanations in instruction 20.18(a) with a single simplified definition | Committee proposed replacing multiple possession definitions and inferences with one simpler explanation to avoid confusion | Court noted no appellate case law finding current instruction deficient; substantive definitional change inappropriate in rulemaking absent an actual case/controversy | Declined to authorize amended instruction 20.18(a); left existing possession explanations intact |
| Whether publication/use authorization forecloses challenges or alternative requests | Committee sought authorization to publish and use amended instructions | Court clarified scope of authorization | Court authorized publication/use but expressly reserved parties’ rights to request alternative instructions or contest correctness |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. State, 783 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (definition/explanation of "impaired" and "normal faculties")
- Tyner v. State, 805 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (blood/breath-alcohol instruction implications)
- State v. Davis, 110 So. 3d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (definition of "vessel")
- Patterson v. State, 512 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (interpretation related to failure-to-obey instruction)
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983) (Faison test applied to kidnapping in the context of a predicate felony)
- Davila v. State, 75 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2011) (parent does not receive statutory exemption from kidnapping liability)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (sentencing facts that increase mandatory penalties must be found by a jury)