238 So. 3d 182
Fla.2018Background
- The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases to consider simplifying possession-related jury instructions.
- The Committee formed an 11-member subcommittee (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys) which unanimously recommended simplifying the definition/explanation of "possession."
- The Committee proposed amended versions of standard jury instructions 16.10 (possession of material including sexual conduct by a child with intent to promote) and 25.7 (possession of a controlled substance) and submitted them to the Court for authorization and publication.
- The amendments add a concise, uniform explanation of "possession" (knowledge of nature/existence and intentional exercise of control), provide guidance on control and joint possession, and remove several previously technical or duplicative definitions (e.g., "mixture," "actual/constructive possession," and the "exclusive control" inference from 25.7).
- The Court considered a public comment, the Committee’s response, and authorized the amended instructions for publication and use, noting authorization does not endorse correctness and parties may still propose alternatives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the possession instructions should be simplified and a single explanation of "possession" added | Committee: simplify instructions for clarity; adopt concise definition requiring knowledge and intentional control | (No opposing position advanced to Court) | Court authorized the proposed simplifications and unified possession language in instructions 16.10 and 25.7 |
| Whether instruction 16.10 should include a definition of "possession" | Committee: add a definition stating State must prove knowledge of nature and intentional control | (No opposing position advanced) | Court approved adding that definition to 16.10 |
| Whether instruction 25.7 should adopt the same "possession" explanation and remove older definitions/inferences | Committee: adopt modified possession text for controlled substances; remove definitions for mixture/actual/constructive possession and the exclusive-control inference to streamline instruction | Commenter (Richard Sanders) raised a concern addressed by Committee; no court-level objection | Court approved adding the possession explanation to 25.7 and removing the listed definitions/inference |
| Whether publication/use of amended instructions forecloses future challenges or requests for alternatives | Committee/Court: authorization is for publication/use only and does not preclude challenges or alternative instructions | Defense/prosecution may later challenge legal correctness in cases | Court expressly authorized use but cautioned it does not opine on correctness and does not bar future requests or contests |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. State, 88 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (discusses inference from exclusive control for possession)
- Meme v. State, 72 So. 3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (discusses exclusive-control inference in possession context)
- Duncan v. State, 986 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (addresses joint control and inferences re: knowledge and control)
- Hamilton v. State, 732 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (discusses involuntary or superficial possession defenses)
- Sanders v. State, 563 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (addresses special instruction when possession is involuntary or superficial)