In re AMENDMENTS TO STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—INSTRUCTION 7.7.
| Decision Date | 22 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. SC10-113.,SC10-113. |
| Citation | 41 So.3d 853 |
| Parties | In re AMENDMENTS TO STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—INSTRUCTION 7.7. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Judge Lisa T. Munyon, Chair, Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases Committee, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orlando, FL, for Petitioner.
As amended on the Court's own motion, we authorize for publication and use instruction 7.7 of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, on an interim basis. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
In State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), we approved the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Montgomery v. State, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D360, ___ So.3d ___, 2009 WL 350624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), to the extent that it concluded that use of instruction 7.7, the standard jury instruction on manslaughter, resulted in fundamental error in Montgomery's first-degree murder case because the instruction erroneously required the State to prove that the defendant intended to kill the victim.
In light of Montgomery, we hereby authorize on an interim basis the publication and use of instruction 7.7 as amended, set forth in the appendix to this opinion. In doing so, we express no opinion on the correctness of the instruction and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative instructions, nor contesting the legal correctness of the instructions. We further caution all interested parties that any comments associated with the instructions reflect only the opinion of the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability. New language is indicated by underlining, and deleted language is struck-through. This interim instruction is authorized for use immediately and until further order of the Court.
We specifically seek comments on the Court's amendment to instruction 7.7 from the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Committee), along with any suggested changes that the Committee deems appropriate. We also welcome comments from any other interested parties. All comments shall be filed with the Court no later than sixty days from the date of this opinion.1
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant's) act(s) intentionally caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).
However, the defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide : as I have previously explained those terms.
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
+----------------+
¦[ 41 So.3d 855 ]¦
+----------------+
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
Give only if 2
(a)
alleged and proved, and manslaughter is being defined as a lesser included offense of first degree premeditated murder.
In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an premeditated intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not justified or excusable and which caused death. See Hall v. State, 951 So.2d 91 (Fla.2d DCA 2007).
Give only if 2b alleged and proved.
To "procure" means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.
Give only if 2c alleged and proved.
I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
§ 782.07(2)-(4), Fla. Stat. Enhanced penalty if 2c alleged and proved. Give a, b, or c, as applicable.
If you find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, you must then determine whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:
a. (Victim) was at the time [an elderly person] [a disabled adult] whose death was caused by the neglect of (defendant), a caregiver.
b. (Victim) was a child whose death was caused by the neglect of (defendant), a caregiver.
c. (Victim) was at the time [an officer] [a firefighter] [an emergency medical technician] [a paramedic] who was at the time performing duties that were within the course of [his] [her] employment. The court now instructs you that (official title of victim) is [an officer] [a firefighter] [an emergency medical technician] [a paramedic].
Definitions. Give if applicable.
"Child" means any person under the age of 18 years.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.
"Dangerous weapon" is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in
+----------------+
¦[ 41 So.3d 856 ]¦
+----------------+
which it was used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
"Elderly person" means a person 60 years of age or older who is suffering from the infirmities of aging as manifested by advanced age, organic brain damage, or physical, mental, or emotional dysfunctioning, to the extent that the ability of the person to provide adequately for the persons own care or protection is impaired.
"Disabled adult" means a person 18 years of age or older who suffers from a condition of physical or mental incapacitation due to developmental disability, organic brain damage, or mental illness, or who has one or more physical or mental limitations that restrict the persons ability to perform the normal activities of daily living.
"Facility" means any location providing day or residential care or treatment for elderly persons or disabled adults. The term "facility" may include, but is not limited to, any hospital, training center, state institution, nursing home, assisted living facility, adult family-care home, adult day care center, group home, mental health treatment center, or continuing care community.
As applied to an Elderly Person or a Disabled Adult.
"Caregiver" means a person who has been entrusted with or has assumed responsibility for the care or the property of an elderly person or a disabled adult. "Caregiver" includes, but is not limited to, relatives, court-appointed or voluntary guardians, adult household members, neighbors, health care providers, and employees and volunteers of facilities.
As applied to a Child.
"Caregiver" means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child's welfare.
§ 825.102(3)(a) or § 827.03(3)(a), Fla....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. State
..."intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of" the victim. In re Amendments to Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Instruction 7.7 , 41 So.3d 853, 854–55 (Fla. 2010).8 Although Montgomery involved completed rather than attempted voluntary manslaughter by act, the......
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report 2017-06
...], 1992 [ 603 So.2d 1175 ], 1994 [ 636 So.2d 502 ], 2005 [ 911 So.2d 1220 ], 2006 [ 946 So.2d 1061 ], 2008 [ 997 So.2d 403 ], 2010 [ 41 So.3d 853 ], 2011 [ 75 So.3d 210 ], and 2017 [ 213 So.3d 680 ], and 2018.7.7(a) AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER § 782.07(2), § 782.07(3), and § 782.07(4), Fla. Sta......
-
Haygood v. State
...Shortly after Montgomery was issued in 2010, the Court issued an interim instruction. See In re Amendments to Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Instruction 7.7, 41 So.3d 853 (Fla.2010). The final revisions to the instruction were accomplished in 2011. See In re Amendments to Stan......
-
Midgett v. Sec'y, Case No. 8:17-cv-1801-T-33JSS
...302-03) was consistent with the standard instruction in effect at the time of trial. See In re Amendments to Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Instruction 7.7, 41 So.3d 853 (Fla. 2010). Nor has Midgett established that the verdict form improperly "comingled" the charged and lesse......