131 So. 3d 720
Fla.2013Background
- The Florida Supreme Court authorizes publication and use of proposed new and amended standard criminal jury instructions from the Committee.
- The Committee proposed new instructions 2.14, 3.6(o), 8.22, 11.10(g), 14.8, 21.9, 21.10, 21.11, 21.12, 21.13, 28.4(a), 28.12, 29.13(c), 29.17 and amendments to 10.1, 10.5, 10.15, 12.1, 16.11, 19.3-19.6, 20.19, 28.3.
- Before filing, the Committee published proposals for comment; one response was received on 28.3 but no changes were made.
- The Court notes inadvertent omissions in 21.10 and 21.11 and corrects them by inserting “or employee.”
- The Court also corrects a faulty citation in 29.17 from 816.015 to 856.015 and reflects that in the appendix.
- New instructions and amendments become effective when the opinion becomes final and are accompanied by notes/comments reflecting the Committee’s views.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Publication authority for new/amended jury instructions | Committee seeks authorization; Court has jurisdiction. | Court authorizes publication but does not endorse correctness. | Authorized for publication and use. |
| Corrections for 21.10/21.11 language | Inadvertent omission—must be corrected. | Corrections appropriate to reflect statute. | Insert ‘or employee’ in both instructions. |
| Citation correction for 29.17 | Defective statutory reference needs fix. | Correction required to align with statute. | Correct citation to §856.015 in appendix. |
| Notes/comments cautionary statements | Notes reflect Committee’s views only. | Notes do not bind Court’s legal conclusions. | Notes/comments remain advisory, not binding. |
| Effectiveness of instructions | Authorized instructions become effective on finality of opinion. | Effectiveness contingent on finalization; no broader ruling on correctness. | Instructions effective upon finality. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brady, 745 So.2d 954 (Fla. 1999) (transfer of intent discussions cited in commentary)
- Nelson v. State, 853 So.2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (transfers intent discussions and related authority)
- Saidi v. State, 845 So.2d 1022 (Fla.5th DCA 2003) (premises for intent and proof concepts cited in comments)
- Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653 (Fla.4th DCA 2008) (possession and knowledge arguments cited in instructions)
- R.R. v. State, 826 So.2d 465 (Fla.5th DCA 2002) (possession concepts referenced in 10.1/10.5 contexts)