Case Title: In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC15-1867

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2016-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC15-1867 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—
REPORT NO. 2015-07. 
 
[May 12, 2016] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal 
Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to the standard jury 
instructions and asks that the Court authorize the amended standard instructions.  
We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
The Committee proposes amending the following existing standard criminal 
jury instructions:  28.1 (Driving Under the Influence); 28.1(a) (Driving Under the 
Influence Causing Property Damage or Injury); 28.2 (Felony Driving Under the 
Influence); 28.3 (Driving Under the Influence Causing Serious Bodily Injury); 28.4 
(Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving [Death] [Serious Bodily Injury] [Injury]); 
28.8(b) (Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding – Leaving a Crash Involving Serious 
Bodily Injury, Injury or Death then Causing Serious Bodily Injury or Death); 
 
 
- 2 - 
28.8(c) (Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding – Leaving a Crash Involving Damage to a 
Vehicle or Property then Causing Serious Bodily Injury or Death); 28.8(d) 
(Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding – Leaving a Crash Involving Serious Bodily 
Injury, Injury or Death then Causing Injury or Property Damage to Another); 
28.8(e) (Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding – Leaving a Crash Involving Damage to a 
Vehicle or Property then Causing Injury or Property Damage to Another); 28.14 
(Boating Under the Influence); 28.15 (Boating Under the Influence Causing 
Property Damage or Injury); 28.16 (Felony Boating Under the Influence); and 
28.17 (Boating Under the Influence Causing Serious Bodily Injury).  The 
Committee also proposes the following new jury instruction:  28.4(b) (Leaving the 
Scene of a Crash Involving Damage to an Unattended Vehicle or Unattended 
Property). 
Before filing its report with the Court, the Committee published its proposals 
for comment in The Florida Bar News.  Three comments were received by the 
Committee: one from the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 
(FACDL) pertaining to instruction 28.4(b); and one each from the Florida Public 
Defender Association, Inc. (FPDA) and Public Defender Blaise Trettis, both 
pertaining to the Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Boating Under the 
Influence (BUI) instructions.  The Committee made some changes to its proposals 
upon consideration of the three comments.  With respect to the DUI and BUI 
 
 
- 3 - 
instructions, the Committee clarified the definition of “impaired.”  With respect to 
instruction 28.4(b), the Committee added a comment to the instruction addressing 
the issue of mens rea.  Because the Court did not view these changes as significant, 
the Court did not publish the Committee’s proposals for further comment. 
Having considered the Committee’s report and the comments received by 
the Committee, we amend the standard jury instructions as proposed by the 
Committee and authorize them for publication and use.  We also authorize new 
instruction 28.4(b), as proposed by the Committee, for publication and use.  In so 
doing, we note with respect to instruction 28.4(b) that the issue raised by FACDL, 
that the misdemeanor hit-and-run statute underlying proposed instruction 28.4(b) 
imposes an affirmative duty on a driver to take certain actions, and therefore 
knowledge of involvement in an accident is implied, has not been expressly 
addressed by any court.  Accordingly, we decline to use the instant proceedings 
authorizing the publication and use of standard jury instructions as the basis for 
addressing such an issue.  Such matters are appropriate for consideration by this 
Court only within the context of an actual case or controversy.  See art. V, § 3(b), 
Fla. Const; In re Std. Jury Instr. in Crim. Cases—Report No. 2015-05, 41 Fla. L. 
Weekly S140 (Fla. Apr. 7, 2016). 
 
 
- 4 - 
The new and amended criminal jury instructions, as set forth in the appendix 
to this opinion, are hereby authorized for publication and use.1  New language is 
indicated by underlining, and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type.  
In authorizing the publication and use of these instructions, we express no opinion 
on their correctness 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 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.   
 
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
                                          
 
 
1.  The amendments as reflected in the appendix are to the Criminal Jury 
Instructions as they appear on the Court’s website at www.floridasupremecourt.org 
/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml.  We recognize that there may be minor 
discrepancies between the instructions as they appear on the website and the 
published versions of the instructions.  Any discrepancies as to instructions 
authorized for publication and use after October 25, 2007, should be resolved by 
reference to the published opinion of this Court authorizing the instruction. 
 
 
- 5 - 
Original Proceeding – Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in 
Criminal Cases 
 
Judge Frederic Rand Wallis, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury 
Instructions in Criminal Cases, Daytona Beach, Florida; Judge Jerri Lynn Collins, 
Past Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal 
Cases, Sanford, Florida; and Barton Neil Schneider, Staff Liaison, Office of the 
State Courts Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
 
 
 
 
- 6 - 
APPENDIX 
 
28.1  DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 
§ 316.193(1), Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Driving under the Influence, the State must prove 
the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) drove [or was in actual physical control of] a 
vehicle. 
2. 
While driving [or in actual physical control of] the vehicle, 
(defendant) 
Give 2a or 2b or both as applicable. 
a. 
was under the influence of [alcoholic beverages] [a 
chemical substance] [a controlled substance] to the 
extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
b. 
had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more 
grams of alcohol per [100 milliliters of blood] [210 
liters of breath]. 
Give if applicable. § 316.193(4), Fla. Stat. (Offenses committed prior to 
October 1, 2008, alcohol level of .20 or higher.) 
If you find the defendant guilty of Driving under the Influence, you 
must also determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt 
whether: 
a. 
the defendant had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of 
.15 or higher while driving [or in actual physical 
control of] the vehicle. 
b. 
the defendant was accompanied in the vehicle by a 
person under the age of 18 years at the time of the 
dDriving under the iInfluence. 
 
 
- 7 - 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
§ 316.003(75), Fla. Stat. 
Vehicle is every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is, 
or may be, transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used 
exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. 
§ 316.1934(1), Fla. Stat. 
Normal faculties include but are not limited to the ability to see, hear, 
walk, talk, judge distances, drive an automobile, make judgments, act in 
emergencies and, in general, to normally perform the many mental and 
physical acts of our daily lives. 
Shaw v. State, 783 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).  
Impaired means diminished in some material respect.  
Give if applicable.  
The option of “on a vehicle” pertains to vehicles such as motorcycles and 
bicycles. 
Actual physical control of a vehicle means the defendant must be 
physically in [or on] the vehicle and have the capability to operate the vehicle, 
regardless of whether [he] [she] is actually operating the vehicle at the time. 
§ 322.01(2), Fla. Stat. 
Alcoholic beverages are considered to be substances of any kind and 
description which contain alcohol. 
( 
 
) is a controlled substance under Florida law. Ch. 893, Fla. 
Stat. 
( 
 
) is a chemical substance under Florida law. § 877.111(1), 
Fla. Stat. 
When appropriate, give one or of the following instructions on the 
presumptions of impairment established by Give if appropriate. § 316.1934(2)(a), 
and (2)(b), and (2)(c), Fla. Stat.  
1. 
If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a 
blood or breath-alcohol level of .05 or less, you shall 
presume that the defendant was not under the influence of 
alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal 
 
 
- 8 - 
faculties were impaired; but this presumption may be 
overcome by other evidence demonstrating that the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
2. 
If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a 
blood or breath-alcohol level in excess of .05 but less than 
.08, that fact does not give rise to any presumption that the 
defendant was or was not under the influence of alcoholic 
beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were 
impaired. In such cases, you may consider that evidence 
along with other evidence in determining whether the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
3. 
If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a 
blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or more, that evidence 
would be sufficient by itself to establish that the defendant 
was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent 
that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired.  But this 
evidence may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence 
demonstrating that the defendant was not under the 
influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] 
normal faculties were impaired. 
It is not necessary to instruct on the “prima facie evidence of impairment” 
in § 316.1934(2)(c), Fla. Stat., if the State charged the defendant with driving with 
a blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or over. In those cases, if the jury finds that 
the defendant drove with an unlawful blood or breath-alcohol level, impairment 
becomes moot. Tyner v. State, 805 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). 
Defense of inoperability; give if applicable. 
It is a defense to the charge of Driving under the Influence if at the time 
of the alleged offense, the vehicle was inoperable. However, it is not a defense 
if the defendant was driving under the influence before the vehicle became 
inoperable.  Therefore, if you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt 
that the vehicle was operable at the time of the alleged offense, you should find 
the defendant not guilty.  However, if you are convinced that the vehicle was 
 
 
- 9 - 
operable at the time of the alleged offense, then you should find the defendant 
guilty, if all the other elements of the charge have been proved beyond a 
reasonable doubt. 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE — 316.193(1) 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
None 
 
 
 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Comment 
A misdemeanor instruction was adopted in 1981 as part of Standard Jury 
Instructions In Misdemeanor Cases. In 1992, a similar instruction was adopted for 
Florida Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases. That instruction was 
amended in 1995 and 1998; both instructions were merged into a revised 
instruction in 2000, which was amended in 2009 [6 So. 3d 574] and 2016. 
28.1(a)  DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CAUSING 
PROPERTY DAMAGE OR INJURY 
§ 316.193(3)(a)(b)(c)1, Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Driving under the Influence Causing [Property 
Damage] [Injury], the State must prove the following three elements beyond a 
reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) drove [or was in actual physical control of[ a 
vehicle. 
2. 
While driving [or in actual physical control of] the vehicle, 
(defendant) 
Give 2a or 2b or both as applicable. 
a. 
was under the influence of [alcoholic beverages] [a 
chemical substance] [a controlled substance] to the 
extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
b. 
had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more 
 
 
- 10 - 
grams of alcohol per [100 milliliters of blood] [210 
liters of breath]. 
3. 
As a result of operating the vehicle, (defendant) caused or 
contributed to causing [damage to the property of (victim)] 
[injury to the person of (victim)]. 
Give if applicable. § 316.193(4), Fla. Stat. (Offenses committed prior to 
October 1, 2008, alcohol level of .20 or higher.) 
If you find the defendant guilty of Driving under the Influence Causing 
[Property Damage] [Injury], you must also determine whether the State has 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether: 
a. 
the defendant had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of 
.15 or higher while driving [or in actual physical 
control of] the vehicle. 
b. 
the defendant was accompanied in the vehicle by a 
person under the age of 18 years at the time of the 
dDriving under the iInfluence. 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
§ 316.003(75), Fla. Stat. 
Vehicle is every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is, 
or may be, transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used 
exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. 
§ 316.1934(1), Fla. Stat. 
Normal faculties include but are not limited to the ability to see, hear, 
walk, talk, judge distances, drive an automobile, make judgments, act in 
emergencies and, in general, to normally perform the many mental and 
physical acts of our daily lives. 
Shaw v. State, 783 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).  
Impaired means diminished in some material respect.  
 
 
- 11 - 
Give if applicable. 
The option of “on a vehicle” pertains to vehicles such as motorcycles and 
bicycles. 
Actual physical control of a vehicle means the defendant must be 
physically in [or on] the vehicle and have the capability to operate the vehicle, 
regardless of whether [he] [she] is actually operating the vehicle at the time. 
§ 322.01(2), Fla. Stat. 
Alcoholic beverages are considered to be substances of any kind and 
description which contain alcohol. 
( 
 
) is a controlled substance under Florida law.  Ch. 893, Fla. 
Stat. 
( 
 
) is a chemical substance under Florida law.  § 877.111(1), 
Fla. Stat. 
When appropriate, give one or of the following instructions on the 
presumptions of impairment established by Give if appropriate. § 316.1934(2)(a), 
and (2)(b), and (2)(c), Fla. Stat. 
1. 
If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a 
blood or breath-alcohol level of .05 or less, you shall 
presume that the defendant was not under the influence of 
alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal 
faculties were impaired; but this presumption may be 
overcome by other evidence demonstrating that the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
2. 
If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a 
blood or breath-alcohol level in excess of .05 but less than 
.08, that fact does not give rise to any presumption that the 
defendant was or was not under the influence of alcoholic 
beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were 
impaired. In such cases, you may consider that evidence 
along with other evidence in determining whether the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
 
 
- 12 - 
3. 
If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a 
blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or more, that evidence 
would be sufficient by itself to establish that the defendant 
was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent 
that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired.  But this 
evidence may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence 
demonstrating that the defendant was not under the 
influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] 
normal faculties were impaired. 
It is not necessary to instruct on the “prima facie evidence of impairment” 
in § 316.1934(2)(c), Fla. Stat., if the State charged the defendant with driving with 
a blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or over. In those cases, if the jury finds that 
the defendant drove with an unlawful blood or breath-alcohol level, impairment 
becomes moot.; Tyner v. State, 805 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). 
Defense of inoperability; give if applicable. 
It is a defense to the charge of Driving under the Influence Causing 
[Property Damage] [Injury] if at the time of the alleged offense, the vehicle 
was inoperable. However, it is not a defense if the defendant was driving 
under the influence before the vehicle became inoperable.  Therefore, if you 
are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle was operable at 
the time of the alleged offense, you should find the defendant not guilty. 
However, if you are convinced that the vehicle was operable at the time of the 
alleged offense, then you should find the defendant guilty, if all the other 
elements of the charge have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CAUSING PROPERTY 
DAMAGE OR INJURY —  - 316.193(3)(a)(b)(c)1. 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
DUI 
 
316.193(1) 
28.1 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
 
 
- 13 - 
Comment 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2009, In re Standard Jury Instructions in 
Criminal Cases-Report No. 2008-08, [6 So. 3d 574] (Fla. 2009), and amended in 
2009 [18 So. 3d 523], and 2016. 
 
28.2  FELONY DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 
§ 316.193(2)(b)1 or § 316.193(2)(b)3, Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Driving under the Influence, the State must prove 
the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) drove [or was in actual physical control of] a 
vehicle. 
2. 
While driving [or in actual physical control of] the vehicle, 
(defendant) 
Give 2a or 2b or both as applicable. 
a. 
was under the influence of [alcoholic beverages] [a 
chemical substance] [a controlled substance] to the 
extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
b. 
had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more 
grams of alcohol per [100 milliliters of blood] [210 
liters of breath]. 
Give if applicable. § 316.193(4), Fla. Stat. (Offenses committed prior to 
October 1, 2008, alcohol level of .20 or higher.) 
If you find the defendant guilty of Driving under the Influence, you 
must also determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt 
whether: 
a. 
the defendant had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of 
.15 or higher while driving [or in actual physical 
control of] the vehicle. 
b. 
the defendant was accompanied in the vehicle by a 
person under the age of 18 years at the time of the 
dDriving under the iInfluence. 
 
 
- 14 - 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
§ 316.003(75), Fla. Stat. 
Vehicle is every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is, 
or may be, transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used 
exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. 
§ 316.1934(1), Fla. Stat. 
Normal faculties include but are not limited to the ability to see, hear, 
walk, talk, judge distances, drive an automobile, make judgments, act in 
emergencies and, in general, to normally perform the many mental and 
physical acts of our daily lives. 
Shaw v. State, 783 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).  
Impaired means diminished in some material respect.  
Give if applicable. 
The option of “on a vehicle” pertains to vehicles such as motorcycles and 
bicycles. 
Actual physical control of a vehicle means the defendant must be 
physically in [or on] the vehicle and have the capability to operate the vehicle, 
regardless of whether [he] [she] is actually operating the vehicle at the time. 
§ 322.01(2), Fla. Stat. 
Alcoholic beverages are considered to be substances of any kind and 
description which contain alcohol. 
( 
 
) is a controlled substance under Florida law.  Ch. 893, Fla. 
Stat. 
( 
 
) is a chemical substance under Florida law.  § 877.111(1), 
Fla. Stat. 
When appropriate, give one or of the following instructions on the 
presumptions of impairment established by Give if appropriate. § 316.1934(2)(a), 
and (2)(b), and (2)(c), Fla. Stat.  
1. 
If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a 
blood or breath-alcohol level of .05 or less, you shall 
presume that the defendant was not under the influence of 
alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal 
 
 
- 15 - 
faculties were impaired; but this presumption may be 
overcome by other evidence demonstrating that the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
2. 
If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a 
blood or breath-alcohol level in excess of .05 but less than 
.08, that fact does not give rise to any presumption that the 
defendant was or was not under the influence of alcoholic 
beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were 
impaired. In such cases, you may consider that evidence 
along with other evidence in determining whether the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
3. 
If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a 
blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or more, that evidence 
would be sufficient by itself to establish that the defendant 
was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent 
that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired.  But this 
evidence may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence 
demonstrating that the defendant was not under the 
influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] 
normal faculties were impaired. 
It is not necessary to instruct on the “prima facie evidence of impairment” 
in § 316.1934(2)(c), Fla. Stat., if the State charged the defendant with driving with 
a blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or over. In those cases, if the jury finds that 
the defendant drove with an unlawful blood or breath-alcohol level, impairment 
becomes moot. Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783, 792, n.14 (Fla. 1992); Tyner v. 
State, 805 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). 
Defense of inoperability; give if applicable. 
It is a defense to the charge of Driving under the Influence if at the time 
of the alleged offense, the vehicle was inoperable. However, it is not a defense 
if the defendant was driving under the influence before the vehicle became 
inoperable.  Therefore, if you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt 
that the vehicle was operable at the time of the alleged offense, you should find 
 
 
- 16 - 
the defendant not guilty. However, if you are convinced that the vehicle was 
operable at the time of the alleged offense, then you should find the defendant 
guilty, if all the other elements of the charge have been proved beyond a 
reasonable doubt. 
Give as applicable if the jury finds the defendant guilty of Driving under the 
Influence. Note: BUI and out-of-state DUI/DWI convictions count as prior 
convictions. See §316.193(6)(k), Fla. Stat.  See State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 
(Fla. 2000). 
Now that you have found the defendant guilty of Driving under the 
Influence, you must further determine whether the State has proven beyond a 
reasonable doubt whether: 
a. 
the defendant was previously convicted two times of 
Driving under the Influence and one of the prior 
Driving Under the Influence convictions took place 
within 10 years of the Driving Under the Influence 
that you found the defendant committed. 
b. 
the defendant was previously convicted three times of 
Driving under the Influence.  
Give if applicable.  316.193(12), Fla. Stat. 
If the records of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 
show that the defendant has been previously convicted of Driving under the 
Influence, you may conclude that the State has established that prior Driving 
under the Influence conviction.  However, such evidence may be contradicted 
or rebutted by other evidence.  Accordingly, this inference may be considered 
along with any other evidence in deciding whether the defendant has a prior 
Driving under the Influence conviction. 
 
 
- 17 - 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
FELONY DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE – [THIRD OFFENSE 
WITHIN 10 YEARS OF A PRIOR CONVICTION] [FOURTH 
OFFENSE] — 316.193(2)(b)1. or 316.193(2)(b)3. 
CATEGORY 
ONE 
CATEGORY 
TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
Driving under 
the influence 
 
316.193(1) 
28.1 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Driving under 
the influence 
causing property 
damage or injury 
316.193(3)(a)(b)(c)1 28.1(a) 
 
Comments 
 
This instruction should be used for Felony Driving under the Influence based 
on prior convictions. For Felony Driving under the Influence based on prior 
convictions, it is error to inform the jury of prior Driving under the 
Influence/Boating under the Influence convictions until the verdict on the 
underlying Driving under the Influence is rendered. Therefore, if the information 
or indictment contains an allegation of prior Driving under the Influence/Boating 
under the Influence convictions, do not read that allegation and do not send the 
information or indictment into the jury room. If the defendant is found guilty of 
Driving under the Influence, the historical fact of prior convictions shall be 
determined separately by the jury in a bifurcated proceeding.  See State v. 
Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000). 
This instruction was adopted in 2009 [6 So. 3d 574] and amended in 2016. 
28.3 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CAUSING 
SERIOUS BODILY INJURY 
§ 316.193(3)(a)(b)(c)2., Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Driving under the Influence Causing Serious 
Bodily Injury, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a 
reasonable doubt: 
 
 
- 18 - 
1. 
(Defendant) drove [or was in actual physical control of] a 
vehicle. 
2. 
While driving [or in actual physical control of] the vehicle, 
(defendant) 
Give 2a or 2b or both as applicable. 
a. 
was under the influence of [alcoholic beverages] [a 
chemical substance] [a controlled substance] to the 
extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
b. 
had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more 
grams of alcohol per [100 milliliters of blood] [210 
liters of breath]. 
3. 
As a result of operating the vehicle, (defendant) caused or 
contributed to causing serious bodily injury to (victim). 
Give if applicable. § 316.193(4), Fla. Stat. (Offenses committed prior to 
October 1, 2008, alcohol level of .20 or higher.) 
If you find the defendant guilty of Driving under the Influence, you 
must also determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt 
whether: 
a. 
the defendant had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of 
0.15 or higher while driving [or in actual physical 
control of] the vehicle. 
b. 
the defendant was accompanied in the vehicle by a 
person under the age of 18 years at the time of the 
dDriving under the iInfluence. 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
§ 316.003(75), Fla. Stat. 
Vehicle is every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is, 
or may be, transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used 
exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. 
§ 316.1934(1), Fla. Stat. 
Normal faculties include but are not limited to the ability to see, hear, 
walk, talk, judge distances, drive an automobile, make judgments, act in 
 
 
- 19 - 
emergencies and, in general, to normally perform the many mental and 
physical acts of our daily lives. 
Shaw v. State, 783 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). 
Impaired means diminished in some material respect. 
Give if applicable. 
The option of “on a vehicle” pertains to vehicles such as motorcycles and 
bicycles. 
Actual physical control of a vehicle means the defendant must be 
physically in [or on] the vehicle and have the capability to operate the vehicle, 
regardless of whether [he] [she] is actually operating the vehicle at the time. 
§ 322.01(2), Fla. Stat. 
Alcoholic beverages are considered to be substances of any kind and 
description which contain alcohol. 
( 
 
) is a controlled substance under Florida law.  Ch. 893, Fla. 
Stat. 
( 
 
) is a chemical substance under Florida law.  § 877.111(1), 
Fla. Stat. 
§ 316.1933, Fla. Stat. 
Serious bodily injury means a physical condition that creates a 
substantial risk of death, serious personal disfigurement, or protracted loss or 
impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. 
When appropriate, give one or of the following instructions on the 
presumptions of impairment established by Give if appropriate. § 316.1934(2)(a), 
and (2)(b), and (2)(c), Fla. Stat.  
 
1. 
If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a 
blood or breath-alcohol level of .05 or less, you shall 
presume that the defendant was not under the influence of 
alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal 
faculties were impaired; but this presumption may be 
overcome by other evidence demonstrating that the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
 
 
- 20 - 
2. 
If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a 
blood or breath-alcohol level in excess of .05 but less than 
.08, that fact does not give rise to any presumption that the 
defendant was or was not under the influence of alcoholic 
beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were 
impaired. In such cases, you may consider that evidence 
along with other evidence in determining whether the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
3. 
If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a 
blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or more, that evidence 
would be sufficient by itself to establish that the defendant 
was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent 
that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired.  But this 
evidence may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence 
demonstrating that the defendant was not under the 
influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] 
normal faculties were impaired. 
It is not necessary to instruct on the “prima facie evidence of impairment” 
in § 316.1934(2)(c), Fla. Stat., if the State charged the defendant with driving with 
a blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or over. In those cases, if the jury finds that 
the defendant drove with an unlawful blood or breath-alcohol level, impairment 
becomes moot. Tyner v. State, 805 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). 
Defense of inoperability; give if applicable. 
It is a defense to the charge of Driving under the Influence Causing 
Serious Bodily Injury if at the time of the alleged offense, the vehicle was 
inoperable. However, it is not a defense if the defendant was driving under the 
influence before the vehicle became inoperable.  Therefore, if you are not 
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle was operable at the time 
of the alleged offense, you should find the defendant not guilty.  However, if 
you are convinced that the vehicle was operable at the time of the alleged 
offense, then you should find the defendant guilty, if all the other elements of 
the charge have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 
 
 
- 21 - 
Lesser Included Offenses 
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CAUSING SERIOUS BODILY 
INJURY—316.193(3)(a)(b)(c)2. 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY 
TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
Driving under the 
influence causing injury  
 
316.193(3)(a)(b)(c)1. 28.1 
28.1(a) 
Driving under the 
influence  
 
316.193(1) 
28.1 
 
Driving under 
the influence 
causing 
property 
damage   
316.193(3)(a)(b)(c)1. 28.1(a) 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Comment 
This instruction was adopted in 1992 and amended in 1998 [723 So. 2d 123], 
2009 [6 So. 3d 574], and 2013 [131 So. 3d 720], and 2016. 
28.4 LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRASH INVOLVING  
[DEATH] [SERIOUS BODILY INJURY] [INJURY]  
§ 316.027(12), Fla. Stat.; § 316.062, Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving [Death]    
[Injury], the State must prove the following four elements beyond a 
reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) was the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash or 
accident occurring on public or private property resulting 
in [injury to] [death of] any person. 
2. 
(Defendant) knew that [he] [she] was involved in a crash or 
accident. 
Give 3a if death is charged or 3b if injury or serious bodily injury is 
charged. 
 
 
- 22 - 
3. 
a. 
(Defendant) knew, or should have known from all of 
the circumstances, including the nature of the crash 
or accident, of the injury to or death of the person. 
b. 
(Defendant) knew, or should have known from all of 
the circumstances, including the nature of the crash 
or accident, of the injury to the person. 
Give 4a, 4b, or both as applicable. 
4. 
a. 
(Defendant) willfully failed to stop at the scene of the 
crash or accident or as close to the crash or accident 
as possible and remain there until [he] [she] had given 
“identifying information” to the [injured person] 
[driver] [occupant] [person attending the vehicle] and 
to any police officer investigating the crash or 
accident. 
[or] 
b. 
(Defendant) willfully failed to render “reasonable 
assistance” to the injured person if such treatment 
appeared to be necessary or was requested by the 
injured person. 
If the State proves that the defendant willfully failed to give any part of 
the “identifying information” or willfully failed to give reasonable assistance, 
the State satisfies this element of the offense. 
Give if serious bodily injury is charged. § 316.027(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; 
§ 316.027(2)(b), Fla. Stat. 
If you find that (defendant) committed the crime of Leaving the Scene of 
a Crash Involving Injury, you must then determine whether the State proved 
beyond a reasonable doubt that the injury was a serious bodily injury. 
“Serious bodily injury” means an injury to a person, including the 
driver, which consists of a physical condition that creates a substantial risk of 
death, serious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function 
of a bodily member or organ. 
Enhancement. Give when the State alleged the victim was a “vulnerable 
road user.” § 316.027(2)(f), Fla. Stat. 
 
 
- 23 - 
If you find that (defendant) committed the crime of Leaving the Scene 
of a Crash Involving [Death] [Serious Bodily Injury] [or] [Injury], you must 
then determine whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
[injured person] [person who died] was: 
[a pedestrian]. 
[actually engaged in work upon a highway]. 
[actually engaged in work upon utility facilities along a highway]. 
[engaged in the provision of emergency services within the right- 
of-way]. 
[operating a [bicycle] [motorcycle] [scooter] [moped] lawfully on  
the roadway]. 
[riding an animal]. 
[lawfully operating [a farm tractor or similar vehicle designed  
primarily for farm use] [a skateboard] [roller-skates] [in-line  
skates] [a horse-drawn carriage] [an electric personal assistive  
mobility device] [a wheelchair] on [a public right-of-way] 
[crosswalk] [shoulder of the roadway]]. 
 
Definitions. Give as applicable.  Fla. Stat. § 316.003(75). § 316.003(75), 
Fla. Stat. 
A “vehicle” is any device in, upon, or by which any person or property 
is, or may be, transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used 
exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. 
§ 316.062, Fla. Stat. 
“Identifying information” means the name, address, vehicle registration 
number, and, if available and requested, the exhibition of the defendant’s 
license or permit to drive. 
“Reasonable assistance” includes carrying or making arrangements to 
carry the injured person to a physician or hospital for medical treatment. 
Patterson v. State, 512 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1stst DCA 1987). 
“Willfully” means knowingly, intentionally and purposely. 
If the “vulnerable road user” enhancement is given, insert applicable 
definitions from § 316.003, Fla. Stat. 
 
 
- 24 - 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
 
LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRASH INVOLVING DEATH 
OR INJURY — 316.027(12)(c) 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
None Leaving the 
Scene of a Crash 
Involving Serious 
Bodily Injury* 
 
316.027(2)(b) 28.4 
Leaving the Scene of a 
Crash Involving 
Injury* 
 
316.027(2)(a) 
28.4 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
 
LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRASH INVOLVING SERIOUS 
BODILY INJURY — 316.027(2)(b) 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
Leaving the Scene of a 
Crash Involving Injury  
 
316.027(2)(a) 
28.4 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Comments 
 
* In Williams v. State, 732 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), the court stated 
in dictum that Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Injury is a necessarily 
lesser-included offense of Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Death. In other 
areas, however, where there is no issue that a person was killed as a result of an 
incident giving rise to criminal charges, non-death lessers are not appropriate. See, 
e.g., State v. Barritt, 531 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1988); Humphrey v. State, 690 So. 2d 
1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).  
See Mancuso v. State, 652 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1995), State v. Dumas, 700 So. 
2d 1223 (Fla. 1997), and State v. Dorsett, 158 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 2015). 
This instruction was adopted in 1995 [665 So. 2d 212] and amended in 2008  
[973 So. 2d 432], and 2015 [166 So. 3d 131], and 2016. 
 
 
- 25 - 
28.4(b)  LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRASH INVOLVING DAMAGE TO 
AN UNATTENDED VEHICLE OR UNATTENDED PROPERTY  
§ 316.063(1), Fla. Stat.  
 
To prove the crime of Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Damage 
to an Unattended Vehicle or Unattended Property, the State must prove the 
following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:  
1. 
(Defendant) was the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash or 
collision. 
2. 
The crash or collision resulted in damage to another vehicle 
or other property. 
3. 
The vehicle or other property was not driven or attended by 
any person. 
4. 
(Defendant) failed to immediately stop at the scene of the 
crash or collision and then and there either  
a. 
locate and notify the operator or owner of the vehicle 
or other property of [his] [her] name and address and 
the registration number of the vehicle [he] [she] was 
driving, or 
b. 
attach securely in a conspicuous place in or on the 
vehicle or other property a written notice giving [his] 
[her] name and address and the registration number 
of the vehicle [he] [she] was driving, and, without 
unnecessary delay, notify the nearest office of a duly 
authorized police authority. 
§ 316.003(75), Fla. Stat. 
“Vehicle” means every device, in, upon, or by which any person or 
property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting 
devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. 
 
 
- 26 - 
Lesser Included Offense 
 
LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRASH INVOLVING DAMAGE TO 
AN UNATTENDED VEHICLE OR UNATTENDED PROPERTY—
316.063(1) 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
None 
 
 
 
 
Attempt  
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Comments 
 
As of September 2015, there was no case law directly addressing the issue of 
whether the State must prove the defendant knew, or should have known, of either 
the crash or the property damage to violate this statute. Compare State v. Dorsett, 
158 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 2015) and Mancuso v. State, 652 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1995) 
dealing with § 316.027, Fla. Stat., which, unlike § 316.063, Fla. Stat., contains an 
explicit willfulness requirement. 
This instruction was adopted in 2016.  
 
28.8(b)  AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING 
(Leaving a Crash Involving Serious Bodily Injury, Injury or Death then 
Causing Serious Bodily Injury or Death)  
§ 316.1935(4)(b) and § 316.027, Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding, the State must 
prove the following seven elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) was the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash or 
accident occurring on public or private property resulting 
in [serious bodily injury to] [injury to] [the death of] any 
person. 
2. 
(Defendant) knew that [he] [she] was involved in a crash or 
accident. 
 
 
- 27 - 
Give 3a if death is charged or 3b if injury or serious bodily injury is 
charged. 
3. 
a. 
(Defendant) knew, or should have known from all of 
the circumstances, including the nature of the crash 
or accident, of the injury to or death of the person. 
b. 
(Defendant) knew, or should have known from all of 
the circumstances, including the nature of the crash 
or accident, of the injury to the person. 
Give 4a or 4b or both as applicable. 
4. 
(Defendant) 
a. 
willfully failed to stop at the scene of the crash or 
accident or as close to the crash or accident as 
possible and remain there until [he] [she] had given 
“identifying information” to the [injured person] 
[driver] [occupant][person attending the vehicle or 
other damaged property] and to any police officer 
investigating the crash or accident. 
[or] 
b. 
willfully failed to render “reasonable assistance” to 
the injured person if such treatment appeared to be 
necessary or was requested by the injured person. 
5. 
A duly authorized law enforcement officer ordered 
(defendant) to stop. 
6. 
(Defendant), knowing [he][she] had been ordered to stop by 
a law enforcement officer, [willfully refused or failed to stop 
[his][her]vehicle in compliance with the order to stop] [and 
after having stopped in knowing compliance with the order 
to stop, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude the 
law enforcement officer.] 
7. 
As a result of (defendant) fleeing or eluding, [he] [she] 
caused [serious bodily injury to] [the death of] (name of 
victim). 
 
 
- 28 - 
§ 316.027, Fla. Stat. 
A driver has the legal duty to immediately stop [his] [her] vehicle at the 
scene of the crash or accident or as close to the scene of the crash or accident 
as possible and provide “identifying information.” 
If the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 
willfully failed to give any part of the “identifying information” or willfully 
failed to give reasonable assistance, the State satisfies this element of the 
offense. 
Enhancement. Give when the State alleged the victim was a “vulnerable 
road user.” § 316.027(2)(f), Fla. Stat. 
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that 
(defendant) committed elements #1 – #4, you must then determine whether the 
State also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the [injured person] [person 
who died] in element #1 was:  
[a pedestrian].  
[actually engaged in work upon a highway].  
[actually engaged in work upon utility facilities along a highway].  
[engaged in the provision of emergency services within the right- 
of-way].  
[operating a [bicycle] [motorcycle] [scooter] [moped] lawfully on  
the roadway].  
[riding an animal]. 
[lawfully operating [a farm tractor or similar vehicle designed  
primarily for farm use] [a skateboard] [roller-skates] [in-line skates] [a 
horse-drawn carriage] [an electric personal assistive mobility device] [a 
wheelchair] on [a public right-of-way] [crosswalk] [shoulder of the 
roadway]].  
 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
Patterson v. State, 512 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1stst DCA 1987). 
“Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. 
Fla. Stat. § 316.062, Fla. Stat. 
“Identifying information” means the name, address, vehicle registration 
number, and, if available and requested, the exhibition of the defendant’s 
license or permit to drive. 
 
 
- 29 - 
“Reasonable assistance” includes carrying or making arrangement to 
carry the injured person to a physician or hospital for medical treatment. 
Fla. Stat. § 316.003(75), Fla. Stat.  
“Vehicle” means every device, in, upon, or by which any person or 
property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting 
devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. 
§ 316.027(1)(a), Fla. Stat. 
“Serious bodily injury” means an injury to a person [including the 
driver,] which consists of a physical condition that creates a substantial risk of 
death, serious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function 
of a bodily member or organ. 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING  
(Leaving a Crash Involving Injury or Death and then Causing Serious 
Injury Bodily Injury or Death) — 
316.1935(4)(b) and 316.027(2)(c) 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA.STAT. 
INS. NO. 
Leaving Scene of a 
Crash Involving 
Death* 
 
316.027(2)(c) 
28.4 
Leaving the Scene of 
a Crash Involving 
Serious Bodily 
Injury* 
 
316.027(2)(b) 
28.4 
Aggravated Fleeing  
 
316.1935(4)(a) 
28.84 
Fleeing to Elude LEO  
316.1935(1) 
28.6 
Leaving Scene of a 
Crash Involving 
Death  
 
316.027(1)(b) 
28.4 
Leaving Scene of a 
Crash Involving 
Injury* 
 
316.027(1)(a)(2)(a) 28.4 
Fleeing to Elude LEO  
316.1935(1) 
28.6 
 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
316.1935(3)(b) 
28.81 
 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
316.1935(3)(a) 
28.8 
 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
316.1935(2) 
28.7 
 
 
- 30 - 
Reckless Driving (if 
there was evidence 
that the fleeing was in 
a motor vehicle) 
 
316.192(1)(b) 
28.5 
 
Disobedience to 
Police or Fire 
Department Officials 
 
316.072(3) 
 
28.18 
 
Comments 
 
* § 316.1935(4), Fla. Stat., states that a person may be charged with both 
Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding and Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Death, 
Serious Bodily Injury, or Injury. Therefore, if a Leaving the Scene crime is 
charged as a separate count, then Leaving the Scene should not be given as a 
lesser-included offense of Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding. 
For the category two lesser included offense of Disobedience to Police, see 
Koch v. State, 39 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). 
See Mancuso v. State, 652 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1995), State v. Dumas, 700 So. 
2d 1223 (Fla. 1997), and State v. Dorsett, 158 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 2015). 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081] and amended in 
2011 [73 So. 3d 136], and 2015 [166 So. 3d 161], and 2016. 
 
28.8(c)  AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING  
(Leaving a Crash Involving Damage to a Vehicle or Property then Causing  
Serious Bodily Injury or Death) 
§ 316.1935(4)(b) and § 316.061, Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding, the State must 
prove the following seven elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) was the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash or 
accident. 
2. 
The crash or accident resulted only in damage to a vehicle 
or other property. 
 
 
- 31 - 
3. 
The [vehicle] [other property] was [driven] [attended] by [a 
person] [(name of person)]. 
4. 
(Defendant) failed to stop at the scene of the crash or 
accident or as close to the crash or accident as possible and 
remain there until [he] [she] had given “identifying 
information” to the [driver or occupant of the damaged 
vehicle] [person attending the damaged vehicle or property] 
[and to any police officer at the scene of the crash or 
accident or who is investigating the crash or accident. 
5. 
A duly authorized law enforcement officer ordered 
(defendant) to stop. 
6. 
(Defendant), knowing [he] [she] had been ordered to stop by 
a law enforcement officer, [willfully refused or failed to stop 
[his] [her] vehicle in compliance with the order to stop] [and 
after having stopped in knowing compliance with the order 
to stop, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude the 
law enforcement officer]. 
7. 
As a result of (defendant) fleeing or eluding, [he] she] caused 
[serious bodily injury to] [the death of] (name of victim). 
If the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant failed 
to give any part of the “identifying information,” the State satisfies this 
element of the offense. 
Definitions. 
Patterson v. State, 512 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1stst DCA 1987).  
“Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. 
Fla. Stat. § 316.062(1), Fla. Stat. 
“Identifying information” means the name, address, vehicle registration 
number, and, if available and requested, the exhibition of the defendant’s 
license or permit to drive. 
Fla. Stat. § 316.003(75), Fla. Stat. 
“Vehicle” means every device, in, upon, or by which any person or 
property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting 
devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. 
 
 
- 32 - 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING  
(Leaving a Crash Involving Damage to a Vehicle or Property then Causing 
Serious Bodily Injury or Death) — 316.1935(4)(b) and 316.061 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA.STAT. 
INS. NO. 
Aggravated Fleeing  
 
316.1935(4)(a) 
28.85 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
 
316.1935(1) 
28.6 
Leaving the Scene of a 
Crash Involving 
Damage to Vehicle or 
Property* 
 
316.061 
28.4(a) 
 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
316.1935(3)(b) 
28.81 
 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
316.1935(3)(a) 
28.8 
 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
316.1935(2) 
28.7 
Reckless Driving (if 
there was evidence 
that the fleeing was in 
a motor vehicle) 
 
316.192(1)(b) 
28.5 
 
Disobedience to Police 
or Fire Department 
Officials 
316.072(3) 
28.18 
 
Comments 
 
* § 316.1935(4), Fla. Stat., states that a person may be charged with both 
Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding and Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving 
Damage to Attended Property. Therefore, if Leaving the Scene is charged as a 
separate count, then Leaving the Scene should not be given as a lesser-included 
offense of Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding. 
As of September 2015, there was no case law directly addressing the issue of 
whether the State must prove the defendant knew, or should have known, of either 
the crash or the property damage to violate this statute. Compare State v. Dorsett, 
158 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 2015) and Mancuso v. State, 652 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1995) 
dealing with § 316.027, Fla. Stat., which, unlike § 316.061, Fla. Stat., contains an 
explicit willfulness requirement. 
For the category two lesser included offense of Disobedience to Police, see 
Koch v. State, 39 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). 
 
 
- 33 - 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081] and amended in 
2011 [73 So. 3d  136], and 2015 [166 So. 3d 161], and 2016. 
 
28.8(d)  AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING 
(Leaving a Crash Involving Serious Bodily Injury, Injury or Death then 
Causing Injury or Property Damage to Another) 
§ 316.1935(4)(a) and § 316.027 Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding, the State must 
prove the following seven elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) was the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash or 
accident occurring on public or private property resulting 
in [serious bodily injury to] [injury to] [the death of] any 
person. 
2. 
(Defendant) knew that [he] [she] was involved in a crash or 
accident. 
Give 3a if death is charged or 3b if serious bodily injury or injury is 
charged. 
3. 
a. 
(Defendant) knew, or should have known from all of 
the circumstances, including the nature of the crash 
or accident, of the injury to or death of the person. 
b. 
(Defendant) knew, or should have known from all of 
the circumstances, including the nature of the crash 
or accident, of the injury to the person. 
Give 4a or 4b or both as applicable. 
4. 
(Defendant) 
a. 
willfully failed to stop at the scene of the crash or 
accident or as close to the crash or accident as 
possible and remain there until [he] [she] had given 
“identifying information” to the [injured person] 
[driver] [occupant] [person attending the vehicle or 
other damaged property] and to any police officer 
investigating the crash or accident. 
 
 
- 34 - 
[or] 
b. 
willfully failed to render “reasonable assistance” to 
the injured person if such treatment appeared to be 
necessary or was requested by the injured person. 
5. 
A duly authorized law enforcement officer ordered 
(defendant) to stop. 
6. 
(Defendant) knowing [he] [she] had been ordered to stop by 
a law enforcement officer, [willfully refused or failed to stop 
[his][her]vehicle in compliance with the order to stop][and 
after having stopped in knowing compliance with the order 
to stop, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude the 
law enforcement officer.] 
7. 
As a result of (defendant) fleeing or eluding, [he] [she] 
caused [an injury to] [damage to the property of] (name of 
victim). 
§ 316.027, Fla. Stat. 
A driver has the legal duty to immediately stop [his] [her] vehicle at the 
scene of the crash or accident or as close to the scene of the crash or accident 
as possible and provide “identifying information.” 
If the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 
willfully failed to give any part of the “identifying information” or willfully 
failed to give reasonable assistance, the State satisfies this element of the 
offense. 
Enhancement. Give when the State alleged the victim was a “vulnerable 
road user.” § 316.027(2)(f), Fla. Stat. 
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that 
(defendant) committed elements #1 – #4, you must then determine whether the 
State also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the [injured person] [person 
who died] in element #1 was:  
[a pedestrian].  
[actually engaged in work upon a highway].  
[actually engaged in work upon utility facilities along a highway].  
 
 
- 35 - 
[engaged in the provision of emergency services within the right- 
of-way].  
[operating a [bicycle] [motorcycle] [scooter] [moped] lawfully on  
the roadway].  
[riding an animal]. 
[lawfully operating [a farm tractor or similar vehicle designed  
primarily for farm use] [a skateboard] [roller-skates] [in-line  
skates] [a horse-drawn carriage] [an electric personal assistive mobility 
device] [a wheelchair] on [a public right-of-way] 
[crosswalk] [shoulder of the roadway]].  
 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
Patterson v. State, 512 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1stst DCA 1987). 
“Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. 
Fla. Stat. § 316.062, Fla. Stat. 
“Identifying information” means the name, address, vehicle registration 
number, and, if available and requested, the exhibition of the defendant’s 
license or permit to drive. 
“Reasonable assistance” includes carrying or making arrangement to 
carry the injured person to a physician or hospital for medical treatment. 
Fla. Stat. § 316.003(75), Fla. Stat. 
“Vehicle” means every device, in, upon, or by which any person or 
property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting 
devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. 
§ 316.027(1)(a), Fla. Stat. 
“Serious bodily injury” means an injury to a person [including the 
driver,] which consists of a physical condition that creates a substantial risk of 
death, serious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function 
of a bodily member or organ.  
 
 
- 36 - 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING  
(Leaving a Crash Involving Injury or Death and then Causing Injury or 
Property Damage to Another) — 
316.1935(4)(a) and § 316.027(2)(c) 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA.STAT. 
INS. NO. 
Leaving Scene of a 
Crash Involving 
Death* 
 
316.027(2)(c) 
28.4 
Leaving Scene of 
Crash Involving 
Serious Bodily 
Injury* 
 
316.027(2)(b) 
28.4 
Fleeing to Elude LEO  
316.1935(1) 
28.6 
Leaving Scene of a 
Crash Involving 
Death 
 
316.027(1)(b) 
28.4 
Leaving Scene of a 
Crash Involving 
Injury* 
 
316.027(1)(a)(2)(a) 28.4 
Fleeing to Elude LEO  
316.1935(1) 
28.6 
 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
316.1935(3)(b) 
28.81 
 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
316.1935(3)(a) 
28.8 
 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
316.1935(2) 
28.7 
Reckless Driving (if 
there was evidence 
that the fleeing was in 
a motor vehicle) 
 
316.192(1)(b) 
28.5 
 
Disobedience to 
Police or Fire 
Department Officials 
 
316.072(3) 
 
28.18 
 
Comments 
 
* § 316.1935(4), Fla. Stat., states that a person may be charged with both 
Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding and Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Death, 
Serious Bodily Injury, or Injury. Therefore, if a Leaving the Scene crime is 
 
 
- 37 - 
charged as a separate count, then Leaving the Scene should not be given as a 
lesser-included offense of Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding. 
For the category two lesser included offense of Disobedience to Police, see 
Koch v. State, 39 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). 
See Mancuso v. State, 652 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1995), State v. Dumas, 700 So. 
2d 1223 (Fla. 1997), and State v. Dorsett, 158 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 2015). 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081] and amended in 
2011 [73 So. 3d 136], 2015 [166 So. 3d 161], and 2016. 
 
28.8(e)  AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING 
(Leaving a Crash Involving Damage to a Vehicle or Property then Causing 
Injury or Property Damage to Another) 
§ 316.1935(4)(a) and § 316.061, Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding, the State must 
prove the following seven elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) was the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash or 
accident. 
2. 
The crash or accident resulted only in damage to a vehicle 
or other property. 
3. 
The [vehicle] [other property] was [driven] [attended] by [a 
person] [(name of person)]. 
4. 
(Defendant) failed to stop at the scene of the crash or 
accident or as close to the crash or accident as possible and 
remain there until [he] [she] had given “identifying 
information” to the [driver or occupant of the damaged 
vehicle] [person attending the damaged vehicle or property] 
[and to any police officer at the scene of the crash or 
accident or who is investigating the crash or accident]. 
5. 
A duly authorized law enforcement officer ordered 
(defendant) to stop. 
 
 
- 38 - 
6. 
(Defendant), knowing [he] [she] had been ordered to stop by 
a law enforcement officer, [willfully refused or failed to stop 
[his] [her] vehicle in compliance with the order to stop] [and 
after having stopped in knowing compliance with the order 
to stop, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude the 
law enforcement officer]. 
7. 
As a result of (defendant) fleeing or eluding, [he] [she] 
caused [injury to] [damage to the property of] (name of 
victim). 
If the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant failed 
to give any part of the “identifying information,” the State satisfies this 
element of the offense. 
Definitions. 
Patterson v. State, 512 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1stst DCA 1987). 
“Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. 
Fla. Stat. § 316.062(1), Fla. Stat.  
“Identifying information” means the name, address, vehicle registration 
number, and, if available and requested, the exhibition of the defendant’s 
license or permit to drive. 
Fla. Stat. § 316.003(75), Fla. Stat. 
“Vehicle” means every device, in, upon, or by which any person or 
property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting 
devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING 
(Leaving A Crash Involving Damage to a Vehicle or Property then Causing 
Injury or Property Damage to Another) — 316.1935(4)(a) and 316.061 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA.STAT. 
INS. NO. 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
 
316.1935(1) 
28.6 
Leaving the Scene of a 
Crash Involving  
Damage to Vehicle or 
Property* 
 
316.061 
28.4(a) 
 
 
- 39 - 
 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
316.1935(3)(b) 
28.81 
 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
316.1935(3)(a) 
28.8 
 
Fleeing to Elude LEO 
316.1935(2) 
28.7 
Reckless Driving (if 
there was evidence 
that the fleeing was in 
a motor vehicle) 
 
316.192(1)(b) 
28.5 
 
Disobedience to Police 
or Fire Department 
Officials 
316.072(3) 
28.18 
 
Comments 
 
* § 316.1935(4), Fla. Stat., states that a person may be charged with both 
Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding and Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving 
Damage to Attended Property. Therefore, if Leaving the Scene is charged as a 
separate count, then Leaving the Scene should not be given as a lesser-included 
offense of Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding.  
As of September 2015, there was no case law directly addressing the issue of 
whether the State must prove the defendant knew, or should have known, of either 
the crash or the property damage to violate this statute. Compare State v. Dorsett, 
158 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 2015) and Mancuso v. State, 652 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1995) 
dealing with § 316.027, Fla. Stat., which, unlike § 316.061, Fla. Stat., contains an 
explicit willfulness requirement. 
For the category two lesser included offense of Disobedience to Police, see 
Koch v. State, 39 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).  
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081] and amended in 
2011 [73 So. 3d 136], and 2015 [166 So. 3d 161], and 2016. 
 
28.14 BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 
§ 327.35(1), Fla. Stat. 
To prove the crime of Boating under the Influence, the State must prove 
the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) operated a vessel. 
 
 
- 40 - 
2. 
While operating the vessel, (defendant) 
Give 2a or 2b or both as applicable. 
a. 
was under the influence of [alcoholic beverages] [a 
chemical substance] [a controlled substance] to the 
extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
b. 
had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more 
grams of alcohol per [100 milliliters of blood] [210 
liters of breath]. 
Give if applicable. § 327.35(4), Fla. Stat. 
If you find the defendant guilty of Boating under the Influence, you 
must also determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt 
whether: 
a. 
the defendant had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of  
.15 or higher while operating the vessel. 
b. 
the defendant was accompanied in the vessel by a 
person under the age of 18 years at the time of the 
bBoating under the iInfluence. 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
State v. Davis, 110 So. 3d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). 
“Vessel” means a boat and includes every description of watercraft, 
barge, and airboat, other than a seaplane, on the water used or capable of 
being used as a means of transportation on water. 
§ 327.354(1), Fla. Stat. 
“Normal faculties” include but are not limited to the ability to see, hear, 
walk, talk, judge distances, operate a vessel, make judgments, act in 
emergencies and, in general, to normally perform the many mental and 
physical acts of our daily lives. 
§ 327.02(30), Fla. Stat. 
“Operate” means to be in charge of or in command of [or in actual 
physical control of] a vessel upon the waters of this state, or to exercise control 
over or to have responsibility for a vessel’s navigation or safety while the 
vessel is underway upon the waters of this state, or to control or steer a vessel 
being towed by another vessel upon the waters of the state. 
 
 
- 41 - 
Shaw v. State, 783 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).  
Impaired means diminished in some material respect.  
§ 322.01(2), Fla. Stat. 
“Alcoholic beverages” are considered to be substances of any kind and 
description which contain alcohol. 
( 
 
) is a controlled substance under Florida law.  Ch. 893, Fla. 
Stat. 
( 
 
) is a chemical substance under Florida law.  § 877.111(1), 
Fla. Stat. 
When appropriate, give one or more of the following instructions on the 
“presumptions of impairment” established by Give if appropriate. § 327.354(2)(a), 
and (2)(b), and (2)(c), Fla. Stat. 
1. 
If you find from the evidence that while operating or          
in actual physical control of the vessel, the defendant had a 
[blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .05 or less, you shall 
presume that the defendant was not under the influence of 
alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal 
faculties were impaired; but this presumption may be 
overcome by other evidence demonstrating that the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
2. 
If you find from the evidence that while operating or in 
actual physical control of the vessel, the defendant had a 
[blood] [breath]-alcohol level in excess of .05 but less than 
.08, that fact does not give rise to any presumption that the 
defendant was or was not under the influence of alcoholic 
beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were 
impaired.  In such cases, you may consider that evidence 
along with other evidence in determining whether the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
3. 
If you find from the evidence that while operating or in 
actual physical control of the vessel, the defendant had a 
[blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more, that evidence 
would be sufficient by itself to establish that the defendant 
 
 
- 42 - 
was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent 
that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. But this 
evidence may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence 
demonstrating that the defendant was not under the 
influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] 
normal faculties were impaired. 
It is not necessary to instruct on the “prima facie evidence of impairment” 
in § 327.354(2)(c), Fla. Stat., if the State charged the defendant with boating with 
a blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or over. In those cases, if the jury finds that 
the defendant operated a vessel with an unlawful blood or breath-alcohol level, 
impairment becomes moot. Tyner v. State, 805 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). 
Defense of inoperability; give if applicable. 
It is a defense to the charge of Boating under the Influence if the vessel 
was inoperable at the time of the alleged offense, unless the defendant was 
controlling or steering the vessel while it was being towed by another vessel 
upon the waters of the state.  However, it is not a defense if the defendant was 
boating under the influence before the vessel became inoperable.  
Lesser Included Offenses 
BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE — 327.35(1) 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
None 
 
 
 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Comment 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2009 [6 So. 3d 574], and amended in 2012 
[87 So. 3d 679], and 2014 [146 So. 3d 1110], and 2016. 
 
 
 
 
- 43 - 
28.15  BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CAUSING 
PROPERTY DAMAGE OR INJURY 
§ 327.35(3)(a)(b)(c)1, Fla. Stat. 
To prove the crime of Boating under the Influence Causing [Property 
Damage] [Injury], the State must prove the following three elements beyond a 
reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) operated a vessel. 
2. 
While operating the vessel, (defendant) 
Give 2a or 2b or both as applicable. 
a. 
was under the influence of [alcoholic beverages] [a 
chemical substance] [a controlled substance] to the 
extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
b. 
had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more 
grams of alcohol per [100 milliliters of blood] [210 
liters of breath]. 
3. 
As a result of operating the vessel, (defendant) caused or 
contributed to causing [damage to the property of (victim)] 
[injury to the person of (victim)]. 
Give if applicable. § 327.35(4), Fla. Stat. 
If you find the defendant guilty of Boating under the Influence Causing 
[Property Damage] [Injury], you must also determine whether the State has 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether: 
a. 
the defendant had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of 
.15 or higher while operating the vessel. 
b. 
the defendant was accompanied in the vessel by a 
person under the age of 18 years at the time of the 
bBoating under the iInfluence. 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
State v. Davis, 110 So. 3d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). 
“Vessel” means a boat and includes every description of watercraft, 
barge, and airboat, other than a seaplane, on the water used or capable of 
being used as a means of transportation on water. 
 
 
- 44 - 
§ 327.354(1), Fla. Stat. 
“Normal faculties” include but are not limited to the ability to see, hear, 
walk, talk, judge distances, operate a vessel, make judgments, act in 
emergencies and, in general, to normally perform the many mental and 
physical acts of our daily lives. 
§ 327.02(30), Fla. Stat. 
“Operate” means to be in charge of or in command of [or in actual 
physical control of] a vessel upon the waters of this state, or to exercise control 
over or to have responsibility for a vessel’s navigation or safety while the 
vessel is underway upon the waters of this state, or to control or steer a vessel 
being towed by another vessel upon the waters of the state. 
Shaw v. State, 783 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).  
Impaired means diminished in some material respect.  
§ 322.01(2), Fla. Stat. 
“Alcoholic beverages” are considered to be substances of any kind and 
description which contain alcohol. 
( 
 
) is a controlled substance under Florida law.  Ch. 893, Fla. 
Stat. 
( 
 
) is a chemical substance under Florida law.  § 877.111(1), 
Fla. Stat. 
When appropriate, give one or more of the following instructions on the 
“presumptions of impairment” established by Give if appropriate. § 327.354(2)(a), 
and (2)(b), and (2)(c), Fla. Stat. 
1. 
If you find from the evidence that while operating or in 
actual physical control of the vessel, the defendant had a 
[blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .05 or less, you shall 
presume that the defendant was not under the influence of 
alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal 
faculties were impaired; but this presumption may be 
overcome by other evidence demonstrating that the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
2. 
If you find from the evidence that while operating or in 
actual physical control of the vessel, the defendant had a 
 
 
- 45 - 
[blood] [breath]-alcohol level in excess of .05 but less than 
.08, that fact does not give rise to any presumption that the 
defendant was or was not under the influence of alcoholic 
beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were 
impaired.  In such cases, you may consider that evidence 
along with other evidence in determining whether the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
3. 
If you find from the evidence that while operating or in 
actual physical control of the vessel, the defendant had a 
[blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more, that evidence 
would be sufficient by itself to establish that the defendant 
was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent 
that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. But this 
evidence may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence 
demonstrating that the defendant was not under the 
influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] 
normal faculties were impaired. 
It is not necessary to instruct on the “prima facie evidence of impairment” 
in § 327.354(2)(c), Fla. Stat., if the State charged the defendant with boating with 
a blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or over. In those cases, if the jury finds that 
the defendant operated a vessel with an unlawful blood or breath-alcohol level, 
impairment becomes moot. Tyner v. State, 805 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).  
Defense of inoperability; give if applicable. 
It is a defense to the charge of Boating under the Influence Causing 
[Property Damage] [Injury] if the vessel was inoperable at the time of the 
alleged offense, unless the defendant was controlling or steering the vessel 
while it was being towed by another vessel upon the waters of the state. 
However, it is not a defense if the defendant was boating under the influence 
before the vessel became inoperable. 
 
 
- 46 - 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CAUSING PROPERTY 
DAMAGE OR INJURY — 327.35(3)(a)(b)(c)1. 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
Boating under the 
Influence 
 
327.35(1) 
28.14 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Comment 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2009 [6 So. 3d 574] and amended in 2012 
[87 So. 3d 679], and 2014 [146 So. 3d 1110], and 2016. 
 
28.16 FELONY BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 
§ 327.35(2)(b)1. or § 327.35(2)(b)3., Fla. Stat. 
To prove the crime of Boating under the Influence, the State must prove 
the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) operated a vessel. 
2. 
While operating the vessel, (defendant) 
Give 2a or 2b or both as applicable. 
a. 
was under the influence of [alcoholic beverages] [a 
chemical substance] [a controlled substance] to the 
extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
b. 
had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more 
grams of alcohol per [100 milliliters of blood] [210 
liters of breath]. 
Give if applicable. § 327.35(4), Fla. Stat. 
If you find the defendant guilty of Boating under the Influence, you 
must also determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt 
whether: 
a. 
the defendant had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of . 
15 or higher while operating the vessel. 
 
 
- 47 - 
b. 
the defendant was accompanied in the vessel by a 
person under the age of 18 years at the time of the 
bBoating under the iInfluence. 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
State v. Davis, 110 So. 3d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). 
“Vessel” means a boat and includes every description of watercraft, 
barge, and airboat, other than a seaplane, on the water used or capable of 
being used as a means of transportation on water. 
§ 327.354(1), Fla. Stat. 
“Normal faculties” include but are not limited to the ability to see, hear, 
walk, talk, judge distances, operate a vessel, make judgments, act in 
emergencies and, in general, to normally perform the many mental and 
physical acts of our daily lives. 
§ 327.02(30), Fla. Stat. 
“Operate” means to be in charge of or in command of [or in actual 
physical control of] a vessel upon the waters of this state, or to exercise control 
over or to have responsibility for a vessel’s navigation or safety while the 
vessel is underway upon the waters of this state, or to control or steer a vessel 
being towed by another vessel upon the waters of the state. 
Shaw v. State, 783 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).  
Impaired means diminished in some material respect.  
§ 322.01(2), Fla. Stat. 
“Alcoholic beverages” are considered to be substances of any kind and 
description which contain alcohol. 
( 
 
) is a controlled substance under Florida law.  Ch. 893, Fla. 
Stat. 
( 
 
) is a chemical substance under Florida law.  § 877.111(1), 
Fla. Stat. 
When appropriate, give one or more of the following instructions on the 
“presumptions of impairment” established by Give if appropriate. § 327.354(2)(a), 
and (2)(b), and (2)(c), Fla. Stat. 
1. 
If you find from the evidence that while operating or          
in actual physical control of the vessel, the defendant had a 
 
 
- 48 - 
[blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .05 or less, you shall 
presume that the defendant was not under the influence of 
alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal 
faculties were impaired; but this presumption may be 
overcome by other evidence demonstrating that the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
2. 
If you find from the evidence that while operating or in 
actual physical control of the vessel, the defendant had a 
[blood] [breath]-alcohol level in excess of .05 but less than 
.08, that fact does not give rise to any presumption that the 
defendant was or was not under the influence of alcoholic 
beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were 
impaired.  In such cases, you may consider that evidence 
along with other evidence in determining whether the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
3.        If you find from the evidence that while operating or in 
actual physical control of the vessel, the defendant had a 
[blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more, that evidence 
would be sufficient by itself to establish that the defendant 
was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent 
that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. But this 
evidence may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence 
demonstrating that the defendant was not under the 
influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] 
normal faculties were impaired. 
It is not necessary to instruct on the “prima facie evidence of impairment” 
in § 327.354(2)(c), Fla. Stat., if the State charged the defendant with boating with 
a blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or over. In those cases, if the jury finds that 
the defendant operated a vessel with an unlawful blood or breath-alcohol level, 
impairment becomes moot. Tyner v. State, 805 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). 
Defense of inoperability; give if applicable. 
It is a defense to the charge of Boating under the Influence if the vessel 
was inoperable at the time of the alleged offense, unless the defendant was 
controlling or steering the vessel while it was being towed by another vessel 
 
 
- 49 - 
upon the waters of the state.  However, it is not a defense if the defendant was 
boating under the influence before the vessel became inoperable.  
Give as applicable if the jury finds the defendant is guilty of Boating Under 
the Influence. Note: A Driving Under the Influence conviction, whether in Florida 
or out-of-state, counts as a prior conviction. See §327.35(6)(i), Fla. Stat.  See State 
v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000). 
Since you have found the defendant guilty of Boating under the 
Influence, you must now determine whether the State has proven beyond a 
reasonable doubt whether: 
a. 
the defendant was previously convicted two times of 
Boating under the Influence and one of the prior 
Boating under the Influence convictions took place 
within 10 years of the Boating under the Influence 
that you found the defendant committed. 
b. 
the defendant was previously convicted three times of 
Boating under the Influence. 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
FELONY BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE — 
PRIOR CONVICTIONS — 327.35(2)(b)1. or 327.35(2)(b)3. 
CATEGORY 
ONE 
CATEGORY 
TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
Boating under 
the influence 
 
327.35(1) 
28.14 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Boating under 
the influence 
causing property 
damage or injury 
327.35(3)(a)(b)(c)1. 28.15 
 
Comments 
 
This instruction should be used for Felony Boating under the Influence 
based on prior convictions. For Felony Boating under the Influence based on prior 
convictions, it is error to inform the jury of prior Boating or Driving under the 
 
 
- 50 - 
Influence convictions before the verdict is rendered.  Therefore, if the information 
or indictment contains an allegation of prior Boating or Driving under the 
Influence convictions, do not read that allegation and do not send the information 
or indictment into the jury room.  If the defendant is found guilty of Boating under 
the Influence, the historical fact of prior convictions shall be determined separately 
by the jury in a bifurcated proceeding.  See State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 
2000). 
This instruction was adopted in 2009 [6 So. 3d 574] and amended in 2012 
[87 So. 3d 679], and 2014 [146 So. 3d 1110], and 2016. 
 
28.17 BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE  
CAUSING SERIOUS BODILY INJURY 
§ 327.35(3)(a)(b)(c)2, Fla. Stat. 
To prove the crime of Boating under the Influence Causing Serious 
Bodily Injury, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a 
reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) operated a vessel. 
2. 
While operating the vessel, (defendant) 
Give 2a or 2b or both as applicable. 
a. 
was under the influence of [alcoholic beverages] [a 
chemical substance] [a controlled substance] to the 
extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
b. 
had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more 
grams of alcohol per [100 milliliters of blood] [210 
liters of breath]. 
3. 
As a result of operating the vessel, (defendant) caused or 
contributed to causing serious bodily injury to (victim). 
Give if applicable. § 327.35(4), Fla. Stat. 
If you find the defendant guilty of Boating under the Influence Causing 
Serious Bodily Injury, you must also determine whether the State has proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt whether: 
 
 
- 51 - 
a. 
the defendant had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of 
.15 or higher while operating the vessel. 
b. 
the defendant was accompanied in the vessel by a 
person under the age of 18 years at the time of the 
boating under the influence. 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
State v. Davis, 110 So. 3d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). 
“Vessel” means a boat and includes every description of watercraft, 
barge, and airboat, other than a seaplane, on the water used or capable of 
being used as a means of transportation on water. 
§ 327.354(1), Fla. Stat. 
“Normal faculties” include but are not limited to the ability to see, hear, 
walk, talk, judge distances, operate a vessel, make judgments, act in 
emergencies and, in general, to normally perform the many mental and 
physical acts of our daily lives. 
§ 327.02(30), Fla. Stat. 
“Operate” means to be in charge of or in command of [or in actual 
physical control of] a vessel upon the waters of this state, or to exercise control 
over or to have responsibility for a vessel’s navigation or safety while the 
vessel is underway upon the waters of this state, or to control or steer a vessel 
being towed by another vessel upon the waters of the state. 
Shaw v. State, 783 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). 
Impaired means diminished in some material respect. 
§ 322.01(2), Fla. Stat. 
“Alcoholic beverages” are considered to be substances of any kind and 
description which contain alcohol. 
( 
 
) is a controlled substance under Florida law.  Ch. 893, Fla. 
Stat. 
( 
 
) is a chemical substance under Florida law.  § 877.111(1), 
Fla. Stat. 
§ 327.353(1)(b), Fla. Stat. 
 
 
- 52 - 
“Serious bodily injury” means a physical condition that creates a 
substantial risk of death, serious personal disfigurement, or protracted loss or 
impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. 
When appropriate, give one or more of the following instructions on the 
“presumptions of impairment” established by Give if appropriate. § 327.354(2)(a), 
and (2)(b), and (2)(c), Fla. Stat. 
1. 
If you find from the evidence that while operating or in 
actual physical control of the vessel, the defendant had a 
[blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .05 or less, you shall 
presume that the defendant was not under the influence of 
alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal 
faculties were impaired; but this presumption may be 
overcome by other evidence demonstrating that the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
2. 
If you find from the evidence that while operating or in 
actual physical control of the vessel, the defendant had a 
[blood] [breath]-alcohol level in excess of .05 but less than 
.08, that fact does not give rise to any presumption that the 
defendant was or was not under the influence of alcoholic 
beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were 
impaired.  In such cases, you may consider that evidence 
along with other evidence in determining whether the 
defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to 
the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. 
3. 
If you find from the evidence that while operating or in 
actual physical control of the vessel, the defendant had a 
[blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more, that evidence 
would be sufficient by itself to establish that the defendant 
was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent 
that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. But this 
evidence may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence 
demonstrating that the defendant was not under the 
influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] 
normal faculties were impaired. 
 
 
- 53 - 
It is not necessary to instruct on the “prima facie evidence of impairment” 
in § 327.354(2)(c), Fla. Stat., if the State charged the defendant with boating with 
a blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or over. In those cases, if the jury finds that 
the defendant operated a vessel with an unlawful blood or breath-alcohol level, 
impairment becomes moot. Tyner v. State, 805 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).  
Defense of inoperability; give if applicable. 
It is a defense to the charge of Boating under the Influence Causing 
Serious Bodily Injury if the vessel was inoperable at the time of the alleged 
offense, unless the defendant was controlling or steering the vessel while it was 
being towed by another vessel upon the waters of the state.  However, it is not 
a defense if the defendant was boating under the influence before the vessel 
became inoperable. 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CAUSING 
SERIOUS BODILY INJURY — 327.35(3)(a)(b)(c)2. 
CATEGORY 
ONE 
CATEGORY 
TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
Boating under the 
Influence 
Causing Injury 
 
327.35(3)(a)(b)(c)1. 28.15 
Boating under the 
influence  
 
327.35(1) 
28.14 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Boating under 
the influence 
causing property 
damage 
327.35(3)(a)(b)(c)1. 28.15 
 
Comment 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2009 [6 So. 3d 574] and amended in 2012 
[87 So. 3d 679], and 2014 [146 So. 3d 1110], and 2016.