In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases

The Florida Supreme Court considered a Committee report proposing amendments to Criminal Standard Jury Instructions 19.1–19.7 (bribery, unlawful compensation/reward, official misconduct).
Amendments primarily respond to chapter 2016‑151, Laws of Florida, which revised chapter 838 by changing mens rea from “corruptly” to “knowingly and intentionally” and adding statutory definitions (e.g., "governmental entity," "public contractor").
The Committee published proposals for comment and received no comments; the Court did not republish the proposals. The Court previously severed these proposals from an earlier case file because they cited Czajkowski while that case was pending here.
The Court authorized the amended instructions for publication and use, but expressly declined to endorse their legal correctness and noted parties may request alternative instructions or challenge correctness.
The amendments (new/stricken language shown in the appendix) become effective when the opinion is final; minor website/published discrepancies should be resolved by reference to the authorizing opinion.

Issue	Committee's Argument	Opposing Argument	Held
Whether jury instructions should reflect revised mens rea (from “corruptly” to “knowingly and intentionally”)	Amend instructions to track statutory change and replace "corruptly" language with "knowingly and intentionally" where required	No opposition/comments were filed	Court authorized the amendments to align instructions with statute
Whether instructions should incorporate new statutory definitions (public servant, governmental entity, public contractor)	Add/clarify definitions and related explanatory language in instructions	No opposition/comments were filed	Court authorized inclusion of statutory definitions and explanatory text
How to explain “pecuniary or other benefit not authorized by law” and related statutory guidance	Incorporate explanatory paragraphs (definitions of pecuniary/benefit and cross‑references to ethics provisions and Czajkowski)	No opposition/comments were filed	Court authorized those explanatory paragraphs in the instructions
Whether authorization forecloses later challenge or alternatives	Committee requested publication/use authorization	Parties may still propose alternative instructions or contest legal correctness	Court authorized publication but clarified it expresses no opinion on correctness and does not preclude challenges

Czajkowski v. State, 178 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (interpretation used to explain "pecuniary or other benefit not authorized by law")
(Review discharged) Czajkowski v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Supreme Court disposition referenced in severance of initial filing)
State v. (amendment history), 911 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2005) (prior amendments to these instructions referenced in Committee history)