Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, Matter of, s. 57734
| Citation | 431 So.2d 594 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | 58799,Nos. 57734,s. 57734 |
| Parties | . Supreme Court of Florida |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
This cause is before this Court upon the report of the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, which recommended: (1) revision of the current standard jury instructions; (2) bifurcation of the instructions by giving certain general instructions at the beginning of the trial; (3) approval of instructions and a handbook for grand jurors; (4) establishment of a table of lesser included offenses; and (5) a requirement that felony murder be specifically charged. Also before us is a petition from the Conference of County Judges to approve standard jury instructions in misdemeanor cases.
The current petit jury instructions in criminal cases were adopted in 1970 and amended in 1976. In 1977 this Court requested the committee to revise and modify the instructions to make them more easily understood by citizen jurors, to consider the approval of instructions and a handbook for a grand jury, and to establish a schedule of lesser included offenses.
The extensive and dedicated efforts of the committee resulted in recommendations and a proposed complete revision of the instructions filed on March 7, 1980. We received comments from the Criminal Law Section of The Florida Bar, the Florida Public Defenders Association, and individual members of the judiciary and the practicing bar. After receipt of these comments, the committee filed revised proposals on December 30, 1980, with one modification filed February 23, 1981.
We have considered all comments and have determined the revised instructions submitted by the committee should be adopted as finally proposed, with some minor modifications.
We recognize that there was a dispute within the committee concerning the instruction on reasonable doubt; we approve the instruction as proposed.
We note that the Criminal Law Section of The Florida Bar approved the instructions as proposed except for the elimination of the instruction on circumstantial evidence. We find that the circumstantial evidence instruction is unnecessary. The special treatment afforded circumstantial evidence has previously been eliminated in our civil standard jury instructions and in the federal courts. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954). The Criminal Law Section's criticism of this deletion rests upon the assumption that an instruction on reasonable doubt is inadequate and that an accompanying instruction on circumstantial evidence is necessary. The United States Supreme Court has not only rejected this view but has gone even further, stating:
[T]he better rule is that where the jury is properly instructed on the standards for reasonable doubt, such an additional instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing and incorrect....
Id. at 139-40, 75 S.Ct. at 139 (1954). The elimination of the current standard instruction on circumstantial evidence does not totally prohibit such an instruction if a trial judge, in his or her discretion, feels that such is necessary under the peculiar facts of a specific case. However, the giving of the proposed instructions on reasonable doubt and burden of proof, in our opinion, renders an instruction on circumstantial evidence unnecessary.
Beginning in January of 1978, the Criminal Law Reform and Rules Committee of the Conference of County Judges of Florida commenced a project to draft standard jury instructions for misdemeanor cases. The conference consulted with this Court's standing committee on jury instructions in criminal cases, and the proposed misdemeanor instructions conform generally to the format of the proposed revisions for criminal cases.
We have reviewed the proposed instructions and find that five of the offenses covered--carrying concealed weapons, criminal mischief, trespass in a structure or conveyance, trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance, and child abuse--are covered, although not identically, by the above-discussed proposed revisions in the instructions for criminal cases. To ensure uniformity and avoid possible litigation, we direct that the proposed instructions submitted by the Standard Jury Instructions Committee be used for these five misdemeanor offenses. The remaining misdemeanor instructions are approved.
We approve the recommendation of the committee that the trial judge be authorized in his discretion to bifurcate his charge to the jury by giving a portion of the general instructions prior to the taking of evidence, with the remaining instructions being given at the close of the evidence and after argument of counsel. The following instructions may be given prior to the taking of evidence: 2.02 and 2.02(a), 2.03, 2.04 [], 2.05, and 2.07. When bifurcating the instructions, the trial judge should repeat instructions 2.02, 2.02(a), 2.03 and 2.04 after argument of counsel. Although this bifurcation is left to the judge's discretion, we believe, as did the committee, that giving the above-numbered instructions at the beginning of the case will provide the jury with a better understanding of their responsibilities and duties. We therefore encourage the use of this jury instruction technique.
In accordance with our request, the committee has submitted proposed uniform instructions for the charging of a grand jury. Further, a handbook for grand jurors to supplement the charge by the court and to aid them in their responsibilities has been submitted for our approval. This project has long been advocated by the Grand Jury Association of Florida, which has reviewed and approved both the handbook and the instructions. We also approve the instructions and handbook and find that they will provide an excellent, uniform means to instruct a grand jury in clear, concise terms.
The 1977 order designating the continuing Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases requested the committee to review the entire procedure for inclusion of lesser included offenses, recommend any desired rule changes on the subject, and establish a schedule of lesser included offenses for each criminal offense. The committee has recommended consolidating to two the four categories of lesser included offenses established by this Court in Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377 (Fla.1968). The four Brown categories are:
1. Crimes divisible into degrees.
2. Attempts to commit offenses.
3. Offenses necessarily included in the offense charged.
4. Offenses which may or may not be included in the offenses charged, depending on the accusatory pleading and the evidence.
The committee recommended treating lesser degrees as category 3 or 4 offenses, depending on the offense, and treating attempts as a category 4 offense, thereby eliminating the first two Brown categories as separate categories and leaving:
1. Offenses necessarily included in the offense charged, which will include some lesser degrees of offenses.
2. Offenses which may or may not be included in the offense charged, depending on the accusatory pleading and the evidence, which will include all attempts and some lesser degrees of offenses.
Attempts, lesser degrees, and the lesser included offenses are the subjects of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.510 and 3.490, respectively. Rule 3.510 provides:
Upon an indictment or information upon which the defendant is to be tried for any offense the jurors may convict the defendant of an attempt to commit such offense if such attempt is an offense, or may convict him of any offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. The court shall charge the jury in this regard.
Rule 3.490 provides:
If the indictment or information charges an offense which is divided into degrees, without specifying the degree, the jurors may find the defendant guilty of any degree of the offense charged; if the indictment or information charges a particular degree the jurors may find the defendant guilty of the degree charged or of any lesser degree. The court shall in all such cases charge the jury as to the degrees of the offense.
These rules and their predecessor statutes have been interpreted in our decision in Brown and in later cases to require instructions on attempts and on all lesser degrees of an offense even when there is no evidence of such.
We agree with the recommendation of the committee to change these rules. The present rules have required instructions to the jury for offenses for which there is no support in the evidence and no argument by counsel, and as a result have caused jury confusion. It was this circumstance that led us to request the committee to recommend a table of lesser included offenses and modifications of our rules.
We do not view these changes as invasions by the trial judge into the province of the jury--our concern in Lomax v. State, 345 So.2d 719 (Fla.1977). In Lomax a trial judge refused to give a requested lesser offense instruction solely because there was ample evidence to support a guilty verdict on the higher offense. This is to be distinguished from the instant changes, which will eliminate the need to give a requested lesser offense, not necessarily included in the charged offense, when there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser offense.
The schedule of lesser included offenses is designed to be as complete a listing as possible for each criminal offense of the possible category 3 and category 4 lesser included offenses, which we direct to be renumbered category 1 and category 2. After its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nevels v. State
-
Combs v. State
... ... the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion to vacate his conviction ... a new sentencing proceeding before a new jury. We reject, however, Combs' contention that the portion of Florida's standard jury instruction which informs jurors that their ... is part of the standard jury instructions that have been used in almost every Florida ... The trial court summarily denied the motion. In this ... Consistent with our decision in these cases, we find that Combs' death sentence was imposed ... As a matter of law, as we hold here, the jury's ... ...
-
Nurse v. State
... ... which were entered below based on an adverse jury verdict. The central issue presented by this ... it constitutes reversible error for a trial court, as here, to instruct the jury, over proper ... law in Florida is well settled that in a criminal case there are two categories of lesser included ... In re the Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal ... of all such lesser included offenses as a matter of judicial implication ... Jury Instr. in Crim. Cases, 543 So.2d 1205, 1232 (Fla.1989) (app. exhibit ... ...
-
King v. State, 07-KA-59203
... ... attempts to influence jurors in a drug trial in which Johnny was the defendant. 1 ... Soon after empanelment of the jury, Johnny, James, and Hattie King decided to "fix" ... law and also Rule 2.05 of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice ... [and] I'm ... of alcohol, the jurors followed the instructions of the Court regarding their conduct. This Court ... Restated, the "rule is that such cases must be decided upon the particular facts and ... Page 1187 ... held: "Applying our standard of review to the findings of fact made by the ... (2d Cir.1944) ("It is true that at times courts have spoken as though if A. makes a criminal ... to the matter being tried now." Johnny responded that his ... ...
-
Dui defense
...and some lesser degrees of the offense. [ See In re the Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases , 431 So. 2d 594, 596 (Fla.1981), modified , 431 So. 2d 599 (Fla.1981).] In a prosecution for an offense with lesser included offenses, the jury may find the d......
-
Misdemeanor defense
...and permissive. [Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.490; 3.510; [ In re the Use by Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases , 431 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1981), modified , 431 So. 2d 599 (Fla.1981) (creating the two categories of lesser included offenses).] A necessarily lesser included off......