Case Title: Standard Jury Instructions - Criminal Cases (99-2)

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC95-832

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2000-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 A “sexually violent predator” is defined in the Jimmy Ryce Act as “any person who: (a)
Has been convicted of a sexually violent offense; and (b) Suffers from a mental abnormality or
personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not
confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment.” § 394.912(10), Fla. Stat.
(1999).  
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC95832
____________
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS–CRIMINAL CASES (99-2).
[June 15, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal
Cases has submitted to this Court proposed jury instructions and a verdict form  for
use in proceedings under the Jimmy Ryce Act.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, §
2(a), Fla. Const.
FACTS
The Jimmy Ryce Act provides for the civil commitment of “sexually violent
predators”1 after their criminal sentences have expired.  See  §§ 394.910-.931, Fla.
-2-
Stat. (1999).  The committee published for comment proposed corresponding jury
instructions and a verdict form in the February 15, 1999, edition of The Florida Bar
News, and received several comments thereon.  The committee made several
changes before submitting its proposed instructions and form to this Court, so this
Court republished for further comment in the August 1, 1999, edition of The Florida
Bar News.  This Court received several additional comments and ultimately held
oral argument in this case.
DISCUSSION  
Upon consideration, and with only slight alteration, we authorize for
publication the instructions and form submitted by the committee.  We address in
turn below some of the most controversial  matters that received extensive attention
in both the comments and oral argument.
I. “SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR”
Perhaps the most contentious issue revolved around the term “sexually 
violent predator” itself, which is used throughout the proposed instructions and
form.  Several comments lamented that use of the term would be extremely
inflammatory, prejudicial, and misleading, and would deprive Jimmy Ryce Act
respondents of due process and a fair trial.  We note, though, that the term is used
throughout the Jimmy Ryce Act itself and, as urged at oral argument by Judge 
-3-
Philip J. Padovano of the First District Court of Appeal, Committee Chair:
This is an issue that was debated in the committee, and we
ultimately concluded that it was necessary to use the term,
at least in our view, because this is, really, the object of
the proceeding, is to determine the status of an individual.
. . . We are, in essence, determining a person’s status as
an individual, that is a status as a sexually violent
predator.  Unless the jury understands that that is their
job, . . . that that is the object, that that is the point of the
proceeding, it seems to me that it would be difficult for
the jury to grasp the significance of what responsibility it
is charged with fulfilling.
Specifically addressing the concern that the term may be inflammatory, Judge
Padovano continued:
It is an inflammatory term, but . . . I think the harshness of
the characterization might actually work to the benefit of
the defense lawyers who object to it. . . . [T]he judge is
not telling the jury that this person is a sexually violent
predator.  The judge is saying the state alleges this.  Now,
if we were to come up with some euphemism for the term,
it might make it easier for the jury to find that [the person]
might fit that categorization.  It seems to me that we ought
to really call it what it is.
We agree with Judge Padovano’s reasoning, but caution that trial courts should not
allow the term to become a feature of the trial.  As phrased by Judge Padovano at
oral argument:
[T]hat certainly is a point that we should exercise great
caution about, and I would hope that it would be handled
properly by trial judges, who have to maintain some
-4-
decorum in these proceedings and not allow that to be
used as the prosecutor referring to this man every five
seconds as a sexually violent predator. . . . [We ought to]
try to encourage trial judges to make sure that these
[Jimmy Ryce Act proceedings] do not get carried away
with character assassinations.
With that caveat in mind, we reject the suggestion to strike the term “sexually
violent predator” in favor of some alternative term throughout the proposed 
instructions and form.        
   
II. “CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE”
The Jimmy Ryce Act requires that “[t]he court or jury shall determine by
clear and convincing evidence whether the person is a sexually violent predator.”  §
394.917(1), Fla. Stat. (1999).  Several comments (and, indeed, a minority of the
committee) criticized the committee’s definition of “clear and convincing evidence”
in proposed jury instruction 2.03 as “evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in
confusion, and of such weight that it produces in your mind a firm belief or
conviction, without hesitation, about the matter in issue.”  The gist of these
comments (and the committee’s minority view) is that the proposed definition
overstates the applicable burden of proof to a level equal to, or even higher than, the
“beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.  
We disagree, as the committee’s proposed definition of “clear and 
-5-
convincing evidence” is consistent with established caselaw definitions of that term. 
See, e.g., In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994); Slomowitz v. Walker, 429
So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).  The only change we make is to strike the “in
your mind” language in the committee’s proposed definition in order to achieve
more exacting conformity with the only other two jury instructions that define the
term “clear and convincing evidence.”  See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) MI 4.1(c)
(jury instruction for defamation) and MI 11(d) (jury instruction for civil theft).  As
rhetorically stated at oral argument by John J. Skye, Assistant Public Defender,
“[w]hy in the world should we define clear and convincing evidence differently in
Jimmy Ryce cases than any other case?”  We agree with this sentiment, and decline
the invitation in many of the comments to define the term differently here.         
III. CONSEQUENCES OF JURORS’ VOTES
A number of comments also criticized how the proposed instructions and
form advise jurors of the consequences of their votes.  Specifically, proposed jury
instruction 2.08 advises jurors that their verdict must be unanimous before the
respondent may be confined to a secure facility as a sexually violent predator; that if
the verdict is not unanimous, but a majority determines that the respondent is a
sexually violent predator, the case may be retried before another jury; and that if
2 Section 394.917(1), Florida Statutes (1999), provides in pertinent part:
If the determination [of whether the person is a sexually violent predator] is made
by a jury, the verdict must be unanimous.  If the jury is unable to reach a
unanimous verdict, the court must declare a mistrial and poll the jury.  If a majority
of the jury would find the person is a sexually violent predator, the state attorney
may refile the petition and proceed according to the provisions of this part.  
-6-
three or more jurors determine that the respondent is not proven to be a sexually
violent predator, the respondent will not be confined to a secure facility and the case
will not be retried before another jury.  The proposed verdict form similarly reflects
voting distinctions as well.       
Several comments lamented that the underlying legislation can be fairly read
as requiring a polling of the jury only after it is unable to reach a unanimous 
verdict and a mistrial is declared, not before the fact through the proposed  
instruction and form at issue here.  See § 394.917(1), Fla. Stat. (1999).2  However,
as urged at oral argument by Judge Padovano:
We could simply give the jury a choice of saying “we
unanimously find that the respondent is or unanimously
find that the respondent is not [a sexually violent
predator], but that would not be accurate.  There are . . .
[other lawful verdicts] authorized by the legislation itself. .
. . [T]o suggest to a jury that they have to have a
unanimous verdict to return a lawful verdict . . . is simply
wrong, because if a jury were to return a verdict of 3-3,
that would be a perfectly lawful verdict [in a Jimmy Ryce
Act proceeding].  It would be a verdict authorized by
legislation, and there is . . . no reason why we ought to let
-7-
jurors assume that they must decide this case
[unanimously] when, in fact, according to the legislation,
they need not.
. . . . . 
. . . [N]ot to include these options in the jury
instructions would be to lead jurors to believe that the
only possibilities were . . . yes or no [the respondent is or
is not a sexually violent predator], and that is simply not
correct, so that is why we put [the options] in there.
We again agree with Judge Padovano’s reasoning, and reject the comments urging
otherwise.  
We also reject related comments like the one submitted by David E. Fleet,
Assistant State Attorney, that under the proposed instruction and form at issue,
“jurors will feel comfortable voting a majority for commitment, so as to avoid
responsibility for the respondent’s release, and avoiding responsibility for the
respondent’s commitment.  The jury will, in effect, ‘pass the buck’ to the next jury,”
thereby causing unnecessary retrials.  We appreciate that concern, but trust that
jurors in Jimmy Ryce Act proceedings will take their duty seriously and not jump at
the opportunity of the “easy out” suggested by Mr. Fleet and others.  However, we
advise the committee to stay abreast of this situation, and will consider revisiting the
matter at a later date if an inordinate number of Jimmy Ryce Act proceedings result
in hung juries and retrials.  For the time being, however, we make no changes to the
proposed instruction and form at issue.
-8-
IV. SUBMITTING CASE TO JURY
Proposed jury instruction 2.08 addresses submission of the case to the jury and
provides in pertinent part:
In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you
follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding
your verdict.  There are no other laws that apply to this
case.  Even if you do not like the laws that must be
applied, you must use them.  For two centuries we have
agreed to a constitution and to live by the law.  No juror
has the right to violate rules we all share.
(Emphasis added).  In his comment to the Committee, Judge Isaac Anderson of the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court suggests that the language emphasized above
“should be changed to read . . . ‘for two centuries we have lived by the constitution
and the law . . . .’  The change is suggested simply to reflect that all of us were not
considered in reaching that agreement; namely, enslaved African Americans and
women.” 
We incorporate this suggested change into proposed jury instruction 2.08, and
direct that it likewise be incorporated into existing Standard Criminal Jury
Instruction 2.09 (General Instructions–Submitting Case to Jury), which uses the
same language.  We wish to recognize Judge Anderson for his sensitivity to the
language used.        
V. CONSTITUTIONALITY 
-9-
Finally, we reject without discussion a number of changes suggested in the
comments and at oral argument involving the constitutionality of the Jimmy Ryce
Act and the proposed instructions and form that flow therefrom.  The
constitutionality of neither the act, the proposed instructions, nor the proposed form
is presently before this Court, and we expressly decline to address any constitutional
concerns.  
 
CONCLUSION
In addition to the few changes discussed above, this Court has made several
minor changes where needed in the proposed instructions and form.  So modified,
we hereby authorize the publication and use of the jury instructions and verdict form
set forth in the appendix attached to this opinion.  We note that while Jimmy Ryce
Act proceedings are civil in nature, it was the criminal jury instruction committee
that prepared, submitted, and urged the instructions and form at issue here.  Judge
Padovano explained at oral argument that
we did this only because the [Jimmy Ryce Act] cases
were building up and it didn't appear that anybody else
was doing anything about it. . . . Our goal was simply to
get something to the court for the court to look at.  That is
all.  We have no interest in where you put it or what
category [of jury instruction handbook (i.e., civil or
criminal)] it goes in.
We both appreciate and commend the committee for its initiative in this matter  
-10-
and, for the time being, allow publication of the subject instructions and form in the
criminal jury instruction handbook.  However, we direct the civil and criminal jury
instruction committees to consider and discuss the issue, and advise this Court as to
the best placement of these instructions and form.
In any event, by authorizing publication, we express no opinion on the
correctness of the jury instructions and verdict form, and remind all interested
parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative
instructions or forms  nor contesting the legal correctness of these  instructions and
form.  We further caution all interested persons 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.
Our thanks to the committee and all the individuals who filed comments with
this Court, especially those who participated in oral argument.  The jury instructions
and verdict form as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when this opinion
becomes final.  As all of the language is new, we forego the usual underlining and
strike-through type format.  
It is so ordered.          
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
-11-
PARIENTE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which
ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF
FILED, DETERMINED. 
PARIENTE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.  
I concur in the majority's opinion with the exception of the approval of the
use of the term "sexually violent predator" throughout the jury instructions and in the
jury verdict form.  The majority acknowledges that the term "sexually violent
predator" is inflammatory and it cautions the trial courts not to "allow the term to
become a feature of the trial."  Majority op. at 3.  At the same time, however, the
majority agrees with Judge Padavono's reasoning that although "sexually violent
predator" is an "inflammatory term . . . the harshness of the characterization might
actually work to the benefit of the defense lawyers who object to it."  Obviously the
many attorneys who have opposed the inclusion of this term do not see its use as a
benefit to their clients.  Our concern should be focused on the fact that the term is
inflammatory and that its use is unnecessary to properly instruct the jury.
"Sexually violent predator" is neither a legal nor a scientific term.  Pursuant to
section 394.917(1), Florida Statutes (1999), the State must prove that a particular
individual meets the statutory criteria for commitment.  The fact that the  
-12-
Legislature coined the phrase does not mean that it is necessary for courts to use
that term in instructing the jury.  As pointed out by the many comments from those
who oppose the use of the term, the State's ability to prove its case will not be
affected in any way by the exclusion of this terminology. 
Therefore, I believe that the inflammatory statutory language should be
excluded from the standard jury instructions for the reasons enunciated in State v.
Emmund, 698 So. 2d 1318, 1320 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1997) (approving trial court's order
prohibiting the State from using the statutory term "violent career criminal").  As the
Third District stated in Emmund,
The problem that is now before us is an uncommon one because
statutory titles and definitions are usually phrased in a reasonably
neutral manner.  Here the statutory terminology creates the potential for
jury confusion and unfair prejudice, as well as the risk that the
defendant's prior record will become a feature of the case.
Id.  Because the term "sexually violent predator" has an even greater potential to
prejudice the defendant and confuse the jury, I cannot agree with the inclusion of
this term in the jury instructions.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
-13-
Original Proceeding - Standard Jury Instructions - Criminal Cases 
Honorable Philip J. Padovano, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury
Instructions in Criminal Cases, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
Julianne M. Holt, Public Defender and John J. Skye, Assistant Public Defender,
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida; Michael J. Satz, State Attorney and
Norman O’Rourke, Assistant State Attorney, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida; Curtis A. Golden, State Attorney and David E. Fleet, Assistant
State Attorney, First Judicial Circuit, Shalimar, Florida; Jerry Hill, State Attorney,
Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida; James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and
Robert T. Connolly, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida;
Brad King, State Attorney, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Ocala, Florida; Bennett H. Brummer,
Public Defender and John E. Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial
Circuit, Miami, Florida; James Russo, Public Defender and R. Blaise Trettis, Executive
Assistant Public Defender, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Melbourne, Florida; and Arthur
I. Jacobs, Fernandina Beach, Florida,
Responding
-14-
APPENDIX
INVOLUNTARY CIVIL COMMITMENT OF 
SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS
§§ 394.910 - 394.930 Fla. Stat.
1.01
PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION
Responsibility of jury and judge.
You have now been sworn as the jury to try this case.  This is a civil case filed by the
petitioner, the State of Florida, against the respondent (respondent's name).  The State alleges
the respondent is a sexually violent predator and should be confined in a secure facility for
long-term control, care, and treatment.  By your verdict, you will decide the disputed issues
of fact.  I will decide the questions of law that arise during the trial, and before you retire to
deliberate at the close of the trial, I will instruct you on the law that you are to follow and
apply in reaching your verdict.  In other words, it is your responsibility to determine the facts
and to apply the law to those facts.  Thus, the function of the jury and the function of the
judge are well defined, and they do not overlap.  This is one of the fundamental principles of
our system of justice.
Steps in trial.
Before proceeding further, it will be helpful for you to understand how a trial is conducted.
In a few moments, the attorneys for the parties will have an opportunity to make opening
statements, in which they may explain to you the issues in the case and summarize the facts
that they expect the evidence will show.  Following the opening statements, witnesses will be
called to testify under oath.  They will be examined and cross-examined by the attorneys.
Documents and other exhibits also may be received as evidence.
After all the evidence has been received, the attorneys will again have an opportunity to
address you to make their final arguments.  The statements that the attorneys now make and
the arguments that they later make are not to be considered by you either as evidence in the
case or as your instruction on the law.  Nevertheless, these statements and arguments are
intended to help you properly understand the issues, the evidence, and the applicable law, so
you should give them your close attention.
Following the final arguments by the attorneys, I will instruct you on the law.
-15-
Things to be avoided.
You should give careful attention to the testimony and other evidence as it is received and
presented for your consideration, but you should not form or express any opinion about the
case until you have received all the evidence, the arguments of the attorneys, and the
instructions on the law from me.  In other words, you should not form or express any opinion
about the case until you are retired to the jury room to consider your verdict, after having
heard all of these matters.
You must decide this case only on the evidence presented during the trial in your presence,
and in the presence of the respondent, the attorneys and myself.  You must not conduct any
investigation of your own.  Accordingly, you must not visit any of the places described in the
evidence, or the scene of the occurrence that is the subject of the trial, unless I direct you to
view the scene.  Also, you must avoid reading newspaper headlines and articles relating to this
case and trial.  You must also avoid seeing or hearing television and radio comments or
accounts of this trial while it is in progress.
Objections.
The attorneys are trained in the rules of evidence and trial procedure, and it is their duty
to make all objections they feel are proper.  When a lawyer makes an objection, the objection
will either be overruled or sustained.  If an objection is overruled, the witness will answer the
question.  If an objection is sustained or upheld, the witness cannot answer the question.  If
an objection is sustained, you must not speculate on what might have happened, or what the
witness might have said, had the witness been permitted to answer the question.  You should
not draw any inference from the question itself.
The judge's conferences with attorneys.
During the trial, it may be necessary to confer with the attorneys out of your hearing to
discuss matters of law and other matters that require consideration by me alone.  It is
impossible to predict when such a conference may be required or how long it will last.  When
such conferences occur, they will be conducted so as to consume as little of your time as is
necessary for a fair and orderly trial of the case.
Recesses.
During the trial we will take recesses.  During these recesses you shall not discuss the case
among yourselves or with anyone else, nor permit anyone to say anything to you or in your
presence about the case.  Further, you must not talk with the attorneys, the witnesses, or any
of the parties about anything, until your deliberations are finished.  In this way, any
appearance of something improper can be avoided.
-16-
If during a recess you see one of the attorneys and he or she does not speak to you, or even
seem to pay attention to you, please understand that the attorney is not being discourteous but
is only avoiding the appearance of some improper contact with you.  If anyone tries to say
something to you or in your presence about this case, tell that person that you are on the jury
trying this case, and ask that person to stop.  If he or she keeps on, leave at once and
immediately report this to the bailiff or court deputy, who will advise me.
At this time, the attorneys for the parties will have an opportunity to make their opening
statements, in which they may explain to you the issues in the case and give you a summary
of the facts they expect the evidence will show.
_________________
Comment
This instruction is based upon Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 1.1 and Kansas jury
instructions regarding the civil commitment of sexually violent predators.
1.02
CLOSING ARGUMENT
Both sides have now rested their case.
The attorneys will now present their final arguments.  Please remember that what the
attorneys say is not evidence.  However, do listen closely to their arguments; they are intended
to aid you in understanding the case.
_________________
Comment
Derived from Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 1.02, Closing Argument.  
2.01 
INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTION
Members of the jury, I shall now instruct you on the law that you must follow in reaching
your verdict.  It is your duty as jurors to decide the issues, and only those issues, that I submit
-17-
for determination by your verdict.  In reaching your verdict, you should consider and weigh
the evidence, decide the disputed issues of fact, and apply the law on which I shall instruct you,
to the facts as you find them from the evidence.
The evidence in this case consists of the sworn testimony of the witnesses, all exhibits
received in evidence, [and] [all facts that may be admitted or agreed to by the parties] [and]
[any fact of which the court has taken judicial notice (explain as necessary)].
In determining the facts, you may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.  You may
make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead you to draw
from the facts shown by the evidence in this case.  But you should not speculate on any matters
outside the evidence.
_________________
Comment
This instruction is based upon Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 2.1 and Kansas jury
instructions regarding the civil commitment of sexually violent predators.
2.02
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is a civil case filed by the petitioner, the State of Florida, against the respondent,
(respondent’s name).  The State alleges the respondent is a sexually violent predator and should
be confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment. 
To prove the respondent, (respondent’s name), is a sexually violent predator, the State must
prove each of the following three elements by clear and convincing evidence:  
a.
(Respondent) has been convicted of a sexually violent offense;  and, 
b.
(Respondent) suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder; and
c.The mental abnormality or personality disorder makes [him] [her] likely to engage in acts
of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and
treatment.  
A sexually violent offense is:  Read only those “sexually violent offenses” applicable based on
-18-
the allegations of the petition and the evidence presented.
1.
Murder while engaged in a sexual battery; 
2.
Kidnapping of a child under the age of 13, and in the course of that offense 
committing a sexual battery or a lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault or act upon or
in the presence of the child;
3.
False imprisonment upon a child under the age of 13, and in the course of that offense
committing a sexual battery or a lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault or act upon or
in the presence of the child; 
4.
Sexual battery;
5.
A lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault or act upon or in the presence of the 
child;
6.
[          ]  If applicable, insert the name of the comparable other state or federal felony
conviction which the state has proved.  See §394.912(9)(g) Fla. Stat. 
7. 
An attempt, conspiracy, or criminal solicitation of, or to commit a sexually violent
offense.  
8.
Any criminal act that has been determined beyond a reasonable doubt to be sexually
motivated.  However, before you can find the crime was sexually motivated, the State
must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that one of the purposes for which the person
committed the crime was sexual gratification.  If you have a reasonable doubt about
whether or not the crime was sexually motivated, then you should find the act was not
sexually motivated.  
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced
doubt.  Such a doubt must not influence you to find the crime was not sexually motivated
if you have an abiding conviction that it was.  On the other hand, if, after carefully
considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction
that the act was sexually motivated, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not
stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then it has not been proven beyond every
reasonable doubt.  
Whether a crime was sexually motivated may have been previously determined.  See §
394.912(9)(h), Fla. Stat.  
“Mental abnormality” means a mental condition affecting a person’s emotional or
-19-
volitional capacity which predisposes the person to commit sexually violent offenses. 
“Likely to engage in acts of sexual violence” means a person’s propensity to commit acts
of sexual violence is of such a degree as to pose a menace to the health and safety of others.
_________________
Comment
This jury instruction is based upon the definitions found in sections 787.01, 787.02, 794.011,
800.04, 394.912, Florida.Statutes.; Chesebrough v. State, 255 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1971); Florida
Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases; and the Kansas jury instructions regarding the civil
commitment of sexually violent predators. 
2.03
BURDEN OF PROOF BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
Before the respondent, (respondent's name), can be confined in a secure facility, the State
has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is a sexually violent
predator.  
Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion, and
of such weight that it produces a firm belief or conviction, without hesitation, about the matter
in issue.  
_________________
Comment
This instruction is based on Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil):  MI 11 (civil theft).  See
Standard Jury Instructions - Civil Cases, 720 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1998).  
2.04  
WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE
It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable.  You should use your common sense in
deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in
considering your verdict.  You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than
other evidence. 
-20-
You should consider how the witnesses acted, as well as what they said.  Some things you
should consider are: 
1.
Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which
the witness testified?
2.
Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?
3.
Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions?
4.
Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided?
5.
Does the witness's testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the
case?
6.
Was the testimony of the witness reasonable when considered in the light of all the
evidence in the case and in the light of your own experience and common sense?  
(Give the following paragraphs only as required by the evidence.)
7.
Has the witness been offered or received any money, preferred treatment or other
benefit in order to get the witness to testify?
8.
Had any pressure or threat been used against the witness that affected the truth of
the witness's testimony?
9.
Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the
testimony he gave in court?
10.
Was it proved that the witness had been convicted of a felony or a crime involving
dishonesty or false statement?
11.
Was it proved that the general reputation of the witness for telling the truth and
being honest was bad?
You may rely upon your own conclusion about the witness.  A juror may believe or
disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness.
-21-
2.05
EXPERT WITNESSES
[You have heard opinion testimony [on certain technical subjects] from [a person]
[persons] referred to as [an] expert witness[es].]  [Some of the testimony before you was in the
form of opinions about certain technical subjects.]
You may accept such opinion testimony, reject it, or give it the weight you think it
deserves, considering the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education of the witness,
the reasons given by the witness for the opinion expressed, and all the other evidence in the
case.
_________________
Comment
Based upon Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 2.2b, Expert Witnesses.
2.06  
RULES FOR DELIBERATION
These are some general rules that apply to your discussion.  You must follow these rules in
order to return a lawful verdict: 
1.
You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions.  If you fail to follow the
law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice.  There is no reason for failing to
follow the law in this case.  All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal
decision in this matter.
2.
This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the
answers of the witnesses [and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence] and
these instructions.
3.
This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for
anyone, or are angry at anyone.
4.
Remember, the lawyers are not on trial.  Your feelings about them should not
influence your decision in this case.
5.
Your duty is to determine if the respondent has been proven to be a sexually violent
predator.  You have nothing whatever to do with the nature or length of the
-22-
confinement in the event you find the State has proven its case against the
respondent.  
6.
The respondent is entitled to the individual consideration and opinion of each of you.
7.
It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness
would give if called to the courtroom.  The witness should not be discredited by
talking to a lawyer about his testimony.
8.
Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias or sympathy.
Your verdict must be based on your views of the evidence, and on the law contained
in these instructions.
_________________
Comment
This instruction is a modified version of Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal)  2.05, Rules
for Deliberation, the Kansas jury instructions regarding the civil commitment of sexual predators, and
section 394.917(1), Florida Statutes.
2.07
CAUTIONARY INSTRUCTION
Deciding a verdict is exclusively your job.  I cannot participate in that decision in any way.
Please disregard anything I may have said or done that made you think I preferred one verdict
over another.
_________________
Comment
This instruction is the same as Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 2.07, Cautionary
Instruction.
-23-
2.08
VERDICT AND SUBMITTING CASE TO JURY
In just a few moments you will be taken to the jury room by the bailiff.  The first thing you
should do is elect a foreperson.  The foreperson presides over your deliberations, like the chair
person of a meeting.  It is the foreperson’s job to sign and date the verdict form when all of you
have agreed on a verdict in this case.  The foreperson will bring the verdict back to the
courtroom when you return.  
Before the respondent may be confined to a secure facility as a sexually violent predator,
your verdict must be unanimous; that is, all of you must agree to the same verdict.  The verdict
must be the verdict of each juror as well as the jury as a whole.  
If the verdict is not unanimous but a majority of the jury determines that the respondent
is a sexually violent predator, the case may be retried before another jury.  
If three or more jurors determine that the respondent is not proven to be a sexually violent
predator [he][she] will not be confined to a secure facility as a sexually violent predator and
the case will not be retried before another jury. 
The verdict must be in writing and for your convenience the necessary verdict form has
been prepared for you. 
(Read and explain verdict form.)
In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in
these instructions in deciding your verdict.  There are no other laws that apply to this case.
Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them.  For two centuries
we have lived by the constitution and the law.  No juror has the right to violate rules we all
share.  
_________________
Comment
Based upon section 394.917, Florida Statutes; Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 2.09,
Submitting Case to Jury.
-24-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE _______________ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR __________________ COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF:  
)
(RESPONDENT’S NAME), 
)
)
Case No. 99-XXXXX
Respondent.
)
__________________________________________)
VERDICT
Complete paragraph A, B or C:
(Check only one)
______
A.
The jury unanimously finds the respondent (name of respondent) is a sexually
violent predator.
______
B.
The jury unanimously find the respondent (name of respondent) is not proven
to be a sexually violent predator.
______
C.
The jury is unable to make a unanimous verdict but, ______ jurors find the
respondent is a sexually violent predator, and________ jurors find the
respondent is not proven to be a sexually violent predator.
DATED this ______ day of _________________, [year].
_______________________       
FOREPERSON
_______________________
(Print Foreperson’s name)