Case Title: In Re: Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases (No. 2005-4)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
_____________ 
 
No. SC05-1621 
_____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS 
IN CRIMINAL CASES (No. 2005-4). 
 
[May 25, 2006] 
CORRECTED OPINION 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal 
Cases (the Committee) petitions this Court to amend the Florida Standard Jury 
Instructions in Criminal Cases.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. 
Const. 
 
On September 6, 2005, the Committee filed Supplemental Report No. 2005-
4, proposing changes to Florida Standard Jury Instructions 3.6(f), “Justifiable Use 
of Deadly Force,” and 3.6(g), “Justifiable Use of Non-deadly Force.”  The 
Committee had originally submitted proposals for changes to the instruction on the 
justifiable use of deadly force after publishing the proposed changes in The Florida 
Bar News on December 1, 2003.  However, after those proposed changes were 
submitted to the Court, the 2005 Florida Legislature changed the law of self-
 
 
- 2 -
defense in Florida by amending portions of chapter 776, Florida Statutes, and 
creating section 776.013, Florida Statutes (2005).  See ch. 2005-27, Laws of Fla.  
Accordingly, the Court declined to adopt the Committee’s proposed amendments.  
See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (No. 2004-1), 911 So. 2d 
766 (Fla. 2005).  After submission, the proposed amendments before the Court 
were published for comment in The Florida Bar News.  Two comments were 
received by the Court: one from the Florida Association of Criminal Defense 
Lawyers and one from the Florida Public Defender Association. 
 
With regard to Standard Jury Instruction 3.6(f), “Justifiable Use of Deadly 
Force,” the Committee recommended the following changes:  (1) substituting the 
words “deadly force” for “force likely to cause death or great bodily harm” in the 
various parts of the instruction; (2) adding an instruction defining “deadly force” as 
“force likely to cause death or great bodily harm”; (3) combining subparts 3 and 4 
into a new subpart 3 in the portion of the instruction dealing with claims of self-
defense predicated on section 782.02, Florida Statutes (2005); (4) expanding the 
explanation of when the first part of the “aggressor” exception should be given; (5) 
deleting those subparts of the instruction concerning the necessity to avoid the use 
of deadly force, the necessity to retreat, the defense of the home, and the defense of 
the home against a co-occupant; (6) adding new subparts concerning the lack of a 
duty to retreat and the presumption of fear when the defendant was in a dwelling, 
 
 
- 3 -
residence, occupied vehicle, or place where he had a right to be; (7) adding 
definitions of “dwelling,” “residence,” and “vehicle”; (8) amending the subpart 
addressing prior threats to make it mesh with the absence of a duty to retreat; (9) 
adding the current year of revision to the comment section; and (10) deleting the 
second sentence in the comment, which refers to the instruction for defense of the 
home against a co-occupant, which instruction was deleted.1 
With regard to Standard Jury Instruction 3.6(g), “Justifiable Use of Non-
deadly Force,” the Committee recommended the following changes:  (1) 
substituting the words “non-deadly force” for “force not likely to cause death or 
great bodily harm” in the various parts of the instruction; (2) adding an instruction 
defining “non-deadly force” as “force not likely to cause death or great bodily 
harm”; (3) substituting the words “another person” for “other person” in the “In 
Defense of Person” instruction; (4) adding the words “to be” to the instruction for 
“In Defense of Person”; (5) adding new subparts on the lack of duty to retreat 
when the defendant is in a dwelling, residence, vehicle, or place where he has a 
right to be; (6) adding definitions of the words “dwelling,” “residence,” and 
“vehicle”; and (7) adding the current year of revision to the comment. 
                                          
 
 
1.  The instruction entitled “Defense of home against co-occupant” is a part 
of instruction 3.6(f) but is unnumbered.  The Committee proposes deleting this part 
of the instruction. 
 
 
- 4 -
Upon consideration of the Committee’s report and the comments filed, we 
hereby authorize the publication and use of the revised instructions without change 
from those recommended by the Committee and as set forth in the appendix 
attached to this opinion.  In doing so, we express no opinion on the correctness of 
the instructions 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 the 
notes and comments associated with the instructions reflect only the opinion of the 
Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their 
correctness or applicability.  The instructions as set forth in the appendix shall be 
effective when this opinion becomes final.  New language is indicated by 
underlining, and deletions are indicated by struck-through type. 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS. 
 
Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal 
Cases 
 
Honorable Terry David Terrell, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury 
Instructions in Criminal Cases, First Judicial Circuit, Pensacola, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
 
 
- 5 -
Honorable Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West 
Palm Beach, Florida, and Paula S. Saunders, Co-Chair, Office of the Public 
Defender, and Michael Ufferman, P.A., Co-Chair,  the Florida Association of 
Criminal Defense Lawyers (FACDL) Amicus Curiae Committee, Tallahassee, 
Florida, 
 
 
Responding with comments 
 
 
- 6 -
APPENDIX 
 
 
 
3.6(f)  JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE 
 
 
Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those 
parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence. 
 
 
Read in all cases. 
 
An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense.  It is 
a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] 
[injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force likely to 
cause death or great bodily harm. 
 
 
Definition. 
 
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. 
 
 
Give if applicable.  § 782.02, Fla. Stat. 
 
The use of deadly force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is 
justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary 
to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while 
resisting: 
 
1. 
another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or 
 
2. 
any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or 
 
3. 
any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling 
house, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her], or. 
 
4. 
any attempt to commit (applicable felony) in any dwelling house 
occupied by [him] [her]. 
 
 
Insert and define applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted 
to commit. 
 
 
Give if applicable.  §§ 776.012, 776.031, Fla. Stat. 
 
 
- 7 -
 
A person is justified in using deadly force likely to cause death or great 
bodily harm if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to 
prevent 
 
1. 
imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or 
another, or 
 
2. 
the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against 
[himself] [herself] or another. 
 
 
Insert and define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim 
was about to commit. 
 
 
Aggressor.  § 776.041, Fla. Stat. 
 
However, the use of deadly force likely to cause death or great bodily 
harm is not justifiable if you find: 
 
 
Give if applicable only if the defendant is charged with more than one 
forcible felony.  See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). 
1.  
(Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping 
after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or 
 
 
Define applicable forcible felony.  Define after paragraph 2 if both 
paragraphs 1 and 2 are given. 
 
2. 
(Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] 
[herself], unless: 
 
a. 
The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that 
[he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in 
imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had 
exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, 
other than using deadly force likely to cause death or great 
bodily harm to on (assailant). 
 
b. 
In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact 
with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] 
[she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force 
likely to cause death or great bodily harm, but (assailant) 
continued or resumed the use of force. 
 
 
- 8 -
 
 
Force in resisting arrest.  § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. 
 
A person is not justified in using force to resist an arrest by a law 
enforcement officer who is known to be, or reasonably appears to be a law 
enforcement officer. 
 
 
Give if applicable. 
 
However, if an officer uses excessive force to make an arrest, then a 
person is justified in the use of reasonable force to defend [himself] [herself] 
(or another), but only to the extent [he] [she] reasonably believes such force is 
necessary.  See § 776.012, Fla. Stat.; Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 
1981); Jackson v. State, 463 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). 
 
 
In some instances, the instructions applicable to §§ 776.012, 776.031, or 
776.041, Fla. Stat., may need to be given in connection with this instruction. 
 
 
Read in all cases. 
 
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force 
likely to cause death or great bodily harm, you must judge [him] [her] by the 
circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was 
used.  The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to 
justify the use of deadly force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the 
appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and 
prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the 
danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.  Based upon 
appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was 
real. 
 
 
Necessity to avoid use of deadly force.  Read in all cases 
 
The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or 
great bodily harm unless [he] [she] used every reasonable means within [his] 
[her] power and consistent with [his] [her] own safety to avoid the danger 
before resorting to that force. 
 
 
Retreat.  Read in all cases 
 
The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify [his] 
[her] use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating 
[he] [she] could have avoided the need to use that force.  However, if the 
defendant was placed in a position of imminent danger of death or great 
bodily harm and it would have increased [his] [her] own danger to retreat, 
 
 
- 9 -
then [his] [her] use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm was 
justifiable. 
 
 
Defense of home.  Give if applicable 
 
If the defendant was attacked in [his] [her] own home or on [his] [her] 
own premises, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the lawful right to 
stand [his] [her] ground and meet with force with force, even to the extent of 
using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if it was necessary to 
prevent: 
 
 
[death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another].] 
 
 
[the commission of a forcible felony.] 
 
 
Define felony 
 
 
Defense of home against co-occupant 
 
If the defendant was attached in [his [her] own home or on [his] [her] 
own premises by a [co-occupant] [any person who was lawfully on the 
premises], the defendant had a duty to retreat within the residence to the 
extent reasonably possible without increasing [his][her] own danger of death 
or great bodily harm. 
 
 
However, the defendant was not required to flee [his] [her] home and 
had the lawful right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, 
even to the extent of using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if it 
was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself]. 
 
 
No duty to retreat. 
If the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was 
attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty 
to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with 
force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was 
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] 
[another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. 
 
Presumption of Fear (dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle).  Give if 
applicable.  See exceptions in § 776.013 (2), Fla. Stat., which may negate the 
giving of this instruction. 
 
 
- 10 -
If the defendant was in a(n)[dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] 
where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] is presumed to have had a 
reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] 
[another] if (victim) had [unlawfully and forcibly entered] [removed or 
attempted to remove another person against that person’s will from] that 
[dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] and the defendant had reason to 
believe that had occurred.  The defendant had no duty to retreat under such 
circumstances. 
 
 
A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter 
another’s [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] is presumed to be doing so 
with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. 
 
 
Definitions.  Give if applicable. 
As used with regard to self defense: 
 
 
“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any 
attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or 
permanent or mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, 
and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. 
 
 
“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either 
temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. 
 
 
“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, 
which is designed to transport people or property. 
 
 
Define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to 
commit. 
 
 
Prior threats.  Give if applicable. 
 
If you find that the defendant who because of threats or prior 
difficulties with (victim) had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was 
in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), then the 
defendant had the right to arm [himself] [herself].  However, the defendant 
cannot justify the use of deadly force likely to cause death or great bodily 
harm, if after arming [himself] [herself] [he] [she] renewed [his] [her] 
difficulty with (victim) when [he] [she] could have avoided the difficulty, 
although as previously explained if the defendant was not engaged in an 
 
 
- 11 -
unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to 
be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat.  
 
 
Reputation of victim.  Give if applicable. 
 
If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and 
dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, 
you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the 
defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of 
that reputation. 
 
 
Physical abilities.  Read in all cases. 
 
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the 
relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim). 
 
 
Read in all cases. 
 
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a 
reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the 
use of deadly force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, you should find 
the defendant not guilty. 
 
 
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was 
not justified in the use of deadly force likely to cause death or great bodily 
harm, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have 
been proved. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1985, 1999, and 
2000, and 2006. 
 
 
The instruction for defense of home against co-occupant is essentially the 
same as the temporary instruction adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in 
Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1999). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 12 -
 
 
3.6(g) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE 
 
 
Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those 
parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence. 
 
 
Read in all cases. 
 
An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense.  It is 
a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] 
[injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of non-deadly force not 
likely to cause death or great bodily harm. 
 
 
Definition. 
 
“Non-deadly” force means force not likely to cause death or great bodily 
harm. 
 
In defense of person.  § 776.012, Fla. Stat.  Give if applicable. 
(Defendant) would be justified in using non-deadly force not likely to 
cause death or great bodily harm against (victim) if the following two facts are 
proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
 
Give if applicable 
1. 
(Defendant) must have reasonably believed that such conduct was 
necessary to defend [himself] [herself] [another] against (victim’s) 
imminent use of unlawful force against the [defendant] [another 
other person]. 
 
2. 
The use of unlawful force by (victim) must have appeared to 
(defendant) to be ready to take place. 
 
In defense of property.  § 776.031, Fla. Stat.   Give if applicable.   
 
(Defendant) would be justified in using non-deadly force not likely to 
cause death or great bodily harm against (victim) if the following three facts 
are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
 
Give if applicable 
1. 
(Victim) must have been trespassing or otherwise wrongfully 
interfering with land or personal property. 
 
 
 
- 13 -
2. 
The land or personal property must have lawfully been in 
(defendant’s) possession, or in the possession of a member of [his] 
[her] immediate family or household, or in the possession of some 
person whose property [he] [she] was under a legal duty to 
protect. 
 
3. 
(Defendant) must have reasonably believed that [his] [her] use of 
force was necessary to prevent or terminate (victim’s) wrongful 
behavior. 
 
No duty to retreat (dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle).  Give if 
applicable. 
 
 
If the defendant is in [his] [her] [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] 
[he] [she] is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of 
death or bodily injury to [himself] [herself] [another] if (victim) has 
[unlawfully and forcibly entered] [has removed or attempted to remove 
another person against that person’s will from] that [dwelling] [residence] 
[occupied vehicle] and the defendant had reason to believe that had occurred.  
The defendant had no duty to retreat under such circumstances. 
 
 
A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter 
another’s [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] is presumed to be doing so 
with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. 
 
 
No duty to retreat (location other than dwelling, residence, or occupied 
vehicle).  Give if applicable. 
 
 
If the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was 
attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty 
to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet  force with 
force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was 
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] 
[another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. 
 
 
Definitions. 
 
As used with regard to self defense, 
 
“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any 
attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or 
 
 
- 14 -
permanent or mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, 
and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. 
 
“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either 
temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. 
 
“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, 
which is designed to transport people or property. 
 
 
Define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to 
commit. 
 
 
Give in all cases. 
 
A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where 
[he] [she] has a right to be. 
 
 
Aggressor.  §  776.041, Fla. Stat. 
 
The use of non-deadly force not likely to cause death or great bodily 
harm is not justified if you find: 
 
 
Give if applicable. 
1. 
(Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping 
after the commission of a (applicable forcible felony). 
 
 
Define applicable forcible felony. 
 
2. 
(Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] 
[herself], unless: 
 
a.  
The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that 
[he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in 
imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had 
exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, 
other than using non-deadly force not likely to cause death 
or great bodily harm to on (assailant). 
 
b. 
In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact 
with (assailant) and indicated clearly to (assailant) that [he] 
[she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of non-deadly 
 
 
- 15 -
force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, but 
(assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. 
 
 
Force in resisting arrest.  § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. 
 
A person is not justified in using force to resist an arrest by a law 
enforcement officer who is known to be or reasonably appears to be a law 
enforcement officer. 
 
 
Give the following instruction if applicable. 
 
However, if an officer uses excessive force to make an arrest, then a 
person is justified in the use of reasonable force to defend [himself] [herself] 
[another], but only to the extent [he] [she] reasonably believes such force is 
necessary.  See § 776.012, Fla. Stat.; Ivester v. State, 398 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 
1981); Jackson v. State, 463 So.2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). 
 
 
In some instances, the instructions applicable to §§ 776.012, 776.031, or 
776.041, Fla. Stat., may need to be given in connection with this instruction. 
 
 
Read in all cases. 
 
In deciding whether the defendant was justified in the use of non-deadly 
force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, you must judge [him] 
[her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the 
force was used.  The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; 
however, to justify the use of non-deadly force not likely to cause death or 
great bodily harm, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a 
reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would 
have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that 
force.  Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed 
that the danger was real. 
 
 
Reputation of victim.  Give if applicable. 
 
If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and 
dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, 
you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the 
defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of 
that reputation. 
 
 
Physical abilities.  Read in all cases. 
 
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the 
relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim). 
 
 
- 16 -
 
 
Read in all cases. 
 
 
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a 
reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the 
use of non-deadly force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, you 
should find the defendant not guilty. 
 
 
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was 
not justified in the use of non-deadly force not likely to cause death or great 
bodily harm, then you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the 
charge have been proved. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1985, and 1992, 
and 2006.