Rodriguez v. State, 172 So. 3d 540

In 2009 Jason Rodriguez entered his former employer’s offices and shot employees, killing one and wounding five; he was indicted for first-degree murder and five counts of attempted first-degree murder.
Rodriguez pleaded insanity (M’Naghten Rule) as his sole defense and presented seven experts who all diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia and opined he did not know right from wrong at the time.
The State conceded Rodriguez had a mental disease but disputed legal insanity, presenting argument (no experts) that Rodriguez acted with purposeful anger over termination and knew his actions were wrong.
At charge conference the court gave the standard M’Naghten-based insanity instruction ( Fla. Std. Jury Instr. 3.6(a) ) and, over Rodriguez’s objection, also gave the older hallucinations instruction ( Fla. Std. Jury Instr. 3.6(b) ) that the prefatory language limits to offenses before June 19, 2000.
The trial court modified the hallucinations instruction to place the burden of proving insanity by clear and convincing evidence on Rodriguez (contrary to the older instruction’s allocation), and instructed jurors to consider the hallucinations instruction only if they first found Rodriguez sane under M’Naghten.
On appeal the court held the hallucinations instruction was inapplicable to 2009 offenses, its use was error, Rodriguez properly objected, and the error was not harmless because the State relied on that instruction in closing and no State experts rebutted the defense experts.

Issue	Rodriguez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the jury should have been instructed with the hallucinations instruction (Std. Instr. 3.6(b)) for a 2009 offense	3.6(b) is inapplicable post–June 19, 2000; only M’Naghten (statutory) applies	Trial court may give both instructions; instruction helps jurors evaluate delusions	Court: giving 3.6(b) for a 2009 offense was error (abuse of discretion)
Whether modifying 3.6(b) to require defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence was proper	Modification improperly imposed additional/unwanted burden; 3.6(b) expressly contemplates State burden pre-2000	Modification acceptable to reflect statute	Court: modification was improper because 3.6(b) applies only pre-2000 and its burden provision differs; placing extra burden on Rodriguez was error
Whether the error was harmless	Instruction and State argument likely misled jury; error materially prejudiced Rodriguez given no State experts	Any error harmless because jury still had M’Naghten instruction and 3.6(b) only offered alternative for defendant	Court: error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal required
Whether defense counsel waived or invited instruction error	Counsel objected at trial and argued against using hallucinations instruction	State argued the instruction provided a second evaluation option for jury	Court: Rodriguez properly objected; no waiver; error stands

Patton v. State, 878 So.2d 368 (establishing Florida’s continued application of the M’Naghten Rule for insanity)
Cruse v. State, 588 So.2d 983 (discussing hallucination instruction in pre-2000 offenses)
Turner v. State, 809 So.2d 59 (addressing use of hallucinations instruction for pre-2000 conduct)
Wallace v. State, 766 So.2d 364 (same; hallucinations instruction given where offense predated statutory change)
Martin v. State, 110 So.3d 936 (error harassing self-defense instruction; guidance on evaluating instructional error and prejudice)
McKenzie v. State, 830 So.2d 234 (standard for when an erroneous instruction is confusing/misleading and may require reversal)
State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (harmless-error standard applied in Florida appellate review)