In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—report 2017-02
229 So. 3d 295
| Fla. | 2017Background
- The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases proposed amendments to jury instructions 23.1–23.7 (prostitution-related offenses) and requested the Court authorize publication and use.
- The Court has jurisdiction under article V, § 2(a) of the Florida Constitution and authorized the proposed instructions for publication and use.
- The Committee removed references to the repealed statute § 796.036 (repealed 2014) from the instructions.
- The instructions’ definition of “structure” was revised to cite Dubose v. State and added a bracketed sentence clarifying an enclosure need not be continuous (may have an ungated opening).
- Instruction 23.1 (maintaining a place) was amended to permit the jury to determine whether reclassification under § 796.07(7) (massage-establishment enhancement) applies and added statutory definitions from chapter 480.
- Instruction 23.5 (offering/engaging) now includes an element requiring the defendant be 18 years or older; instruction 23.6 redefines “solicit” consistent with § 777.04(2). The Committee declined to treat prior violations as jury-found elements and instead addressed the issue in Comments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court should authorize amended jury instructions 23.1–23.7 | Committee: Amendments reflect statutory changes and case law; should be published for use | FACDL: suggested clarifications (e.g., prior-offense treatment) and other changes | Court authorized the proposed instructions for publication and use |
| Whether references to repealed § 796.036 should be removed | Committee: Remove references because statute was repealed in 2014 | (Implicit) Opponent: may have sought retention for clarity | Court ordered removal of all references to repealed § 796.036 |
| How to define “structure” for these offenses | Committee: Update definition, cite Dubose, and add that enclosure need not be continuous | (Implicit) Concern over ambiguity of enclosed land definition | Court adopted definition citing Dubose and included bracketed sentence about ungated openings |
| Whether prior related offenses are jury elements or sentencing/recidivist factors | FACDL: requested clarification that priors are an element to be found by a jury | Committee/Court: rely on prior decision declining to decide element vs. recidivist issue in instruction case | Court declined to treat priors as jury-elements here and left discussion to Comment; adhered to earlier decision (2016) |
| Whether to add reclassification question for massage establishments in instruction 23.1 | Committee: Jury should determine whether reclassification under § 796.07(7) applies and include statutory massage definitions | Opposing view: not stated in opinion | Court added a paragraph allowing jury determination and included chapter 480 definitions |
| Whether to add age element and redefine “solicit” | Committee: Add age (18+) element to 23.5; redefine “solicit” in 23.6 per § 777.04(2) | Opponent: not credited | Court adopted both amendments |
Key Cases Cited
- Dubose v. State, 210 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 2017) (construing the definition/scope of “structure” for related offenses)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2015-08, 194 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 2016) (Court previously declined to resolve whether priors are elements in a jury-instruction proceeding)