Rafael Alexander Gutierrez v. State of Florida, 177 So. 3d 226

Defendant Rafael Gutierrez was convicted by a jury of sexual battery after the alleged victim said he raped her in the front seat of her car; DNA from the victim matched Gutierrez.
At trial the court gave a special jury instruction—drawn from §794.022(1)—stating that a sexual battery victim’s testimony “need not be corroborated.”
Defense objected that the instruction singled out the victim and could mislead the jury; defense had argued lack of corroboration in opening statement.
The Fifth District held the instruction was erroneous but harmless and affirmed; Judge Evander dissented as to harmlessness.
The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve conflict with the Second District’s decision in Brown v. State and ultimately quashed the Fifth District, holding the instruction is improper and the error was not harmless.

Issue	Gutierrez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a jury instruction that a sexual battery victim’s testimony “need not be corroborated” is a proper jury instruction	Instruction is improper because it singles out the victim and impermissibly comments on credibility	Instruction is a correct statement of law (statutory) and may be given in the court’s discretion depending on facts	Instruction is improper as a jury instruction: it comments on the evidence and risks misleading jurors; not left to trial-court discretion
If the instruction is erroneous, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Error likely affected the jury and is not harmless given contested facts and possible alternative explanations for injuries	Error was harmless because victim’s testimony was corroborated (DNA, nurse examiner, photos)	Error was not harmless: reasonable possibility it contributed to conviction; remand for new trial

Brown v. State, 11 So.3d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (held “no corroboration” instruction improper and likely to mislead jury)
Marr v. State, 494 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 1986) (rejected a requested “rigid scrutiny” instruction as improper; standard weighing instruction adequate)
Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747 (Fla. 2001) (standard jury instructions are presumed correct and preferred over special instructions)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error test: whether there is a reasonable possibility the error contributed to conviction)
DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (adopts Chapman standard and places burden on State to prove error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1984) (trial courts must avoid comments that intimate opinion on weight or credibility of evidence)