Title: Standard Jury Instructions-Criminal Cases

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

603 So. 2d 1175 (1992)
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS  CRIMINAL CASES NO. 92-1.
No. 79320.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 2, 1992.
Harry Lee Coe III, Chair, Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal), Tampa, for petitioner.
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal) has submitted recommended amendments to the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases. The explanatory portion of the report is quoted below:
One of the committee's recommendations pertained to the instruction on excusable homicide. The so-called short-form instruction on this subject is found in the introduction to homicide on pages 61 and 62 of the manual, and the so-called long form is found on page 76 of the manual. The current instructions provide that the short *1176 form shall be read in all murder and manslaughter cases, and that the long form shall also be read whenever excusable homicide is an issue in the case. The committee concludes that the long form as last amended in State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1990), is incorrect because it requires under all three of the alternative circumstances that the killing be committed by accident and misfortune. The committee believes that a killing upon sudden combat without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel and unusual manner need not have occurred by accident and misfortune and has recommended an instruction to this effect. The committee suggests that its recommended instruction replace both the current short- and long-form instructions and that the new instruction not be given where there is no basis for it in the evidence. We respectfully disagree with the committee's recommendation on this subject.
Section 782.03, Florida Statutes (1991), reads as follows:
We believe the most logical interpretation of this language is as follows:
Thus, a killing which results from sudden combat must have been committed by accident and misfortune. This view is supported by logic as well as the language of the statute. We do not believe the legislature would have intended to always excuse a homicide that occurred during sudden combat so long as a dangerous weapon was not used and it was not done in a cruel or unusual manner. If this were so, anyone who became involved in a fight and later purposefully killed his opponent would be excused if he did not use a dangerous weapon and did not do the killing in a cruel and unusual manner. We interpret the sudden combat exception to protect a person who becomes involved in a fight which accidentally leads to the death of the other party.
Furthermore, we do not concur with the committee's suggestion that no portion of the excusable homicide instruction need be read when it has no basis in the evidence. We say this because Florida case law has consistently held that manslaughter is a residual offense which cannot be properly defined without an explanation that justifiable homicide and excusable homicide are excluded from the crime. Rojas v. State, 552 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1989); Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1965). Because a manslaughter instruction will have to be given in every homicide case, the instruction on excusable homicide will also have to be included. We do, however, concur with the committee's suggestion that only one instruction on excusable homicide need be given rather than both the current short and long forms.
Therefore, we hold that the following instruction on excusable homicide shall be given in every homicide case in place of the short form now found on pages 61 and 62 of the manual.
Because this instruction will adequately cover the subject even when excusable homicide is an issue in the case, the long-form instruction now found on page 76 of the manual need not be given and shall be eliminated. The new pages 61 and 62 are included in the appendix to this opinion as pages A-10 and A-11 in lieu of the amendment to the long-form instruction on excusable homicide proposed by the committee.
All of the other recommendations of the committee, which are included in the appendix to this opinion, are approved for publication. We caution all interested persons, however, that the notes and comments reflect only the opinion of the committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability. We wish to express our appreciation to the committee for its dedication in presenting to the Court its comprehensive recommendations.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Explanation of amendments: This instruction is on page 18 of the manual. The note in the margin is being removed because the committee believes that this instruction should be given any time the defendant testifies.
Feminine pronouns have been added to this and the other proposed instructions to avoid gender bias.
Explanation of amendments: This instruction is from page 32a of the manual. The note to judge is obsolete in light of State v. Dene.
Explanation of amendments: This instruction is from page 33 of the manual. The note to judge is obsolete in light of State v. Dene.
Explanation of amendments: This instruction is on pages 44-45b of the manual. The paragraph being deleted does not seem to be a correct statement of law. The note in the margin indicates that the paragraph is about the use of deadly force, but the paragraph actually talks about nondeadly force. In doing so, it apparently is inaccurate. The committee is in agreement that no duty to use "every reasonable means ... to avoid the danger exists under Florida law." See Redondo v. State, 380 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.3d DCA 1980) (footnote 1).
Explanation of proposed instruction: This instruction is based on the instruction on page 46 of the manual and on amendments to F.S. 775.087(1) in 1989.
Explanation of proposed instruction: This is based on the instruction on page 46 of the manual and on amendments to F.S. 775.087(2) in 1989.
Explanation of amendments: This instruction is on page 64 of the manual. The changes are intended to conform the instruction to the holding of State v. Dene, 533 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1988).
Explanation of amendments: This instruction is on page 67 of the manual. The changes are intended to conform the instruction to the holding of State v. Dene, 533 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1988).
Explanation of amendments: The instruction begins on page 68 of the manual. The addition of "intentional" to (2)(a) and (2)(b) was approved by the committee after discussion of Taylor v. State, 444 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1983).
Explanation of amendments: This instruction begins on page 70 of the manual. The words "or contributed to the cause of" were added to paragraph 2 after discussing Magaw v. State, 537 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1989). The committee decided that the definition of alcoholic beverages was unnecessary and perhaps too limiting.
*1198 Explanation of proposed instruction: This instruction is based on F.S. 316.193(2)(b), which was created in 1986. The instruction covers the elements of DUI only. It does not mention three prior convictions, the element that separates felony DUI from misdemeanor DUI. The issue of previous convictions must be determined after a guilty finding on the basic elements of DUI. State v. Rodriguez, 575 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1991).
Explanation of proposed instruction: This instruction is based on F.S. 316.193(3)(c)2, which was created in 1986.
Explanation of amendment: This instruction begins on page 77 of the manual. The Note to Judge is added to bring F.S. 775.0823 to the court's attention in appropriate cases.
Explanation of proposed changes: The instruction is on page 92 of the manual. The changes are editorial.
Explanation of proposed changes: The instruction is on page 93 of the manual. The changes are editorial.
Explanation of proposed instruction: This instruction is new based on F.S. 784.07(2)(c), which was created in 1988. The wording is similar to the instruction for assault of law enforcement officer on page 92 of the manual.
Explanation of proposed instruction: This instruction is new based on F.S. 784.07(2)(d), which was created in 1988. The wording is similar to the instruction for battery of a law enforcement officer on page 93 of the manual.
Explanation of amendments: This instruction appears on page 99 of the manual. The addition of "or firearm" clarifies the second Note to Judge.
Explanation of proposed instructions: This instruction is based on the instruction on page 103 of the manual and on amendments to F.S. 790.161 in 1990.
Explanation of proposed instruction: This is based on the instruction on page 103 of the manual and on amendments to F.S. 790.161 in 1990.
Explanation of proposed instruction: This is based on the instruction on page 103 of the manual and on amendments to F.S. 790.161 in 1990.
Explanation of proposed instruction: This is based on the instruction on page 103 of the manual and on amendments to F.S. 790.161 in 1990.
Explanation of amendments: This instruction is on page 108 of the manual. The addition of "or firearm" clarifies the last sentence of this instruction.
Explanation of amendment: This instruction begins on page 111b of the manual. This change (addition of "knowingly" in paragraph (2)) is based on White v. State, 539 So. 2d 577 (Fla.5th DCA 1989).
Explanation of amendments: The instruction begins on page 119 of the manual. The addition of "physically incapacitated" is based on 1989 amendments to F.S. 794.011.
*1227 Explanation of proposed revision: The instruction begins on page 122 of the manual. The revision is based on F.S. 800.04 as amended in 1990.
Explanation of amendments: The instruction begins on page 127 of the manual. The new language is added based on 1990 amendments to F.S. 806.01(1).
Explanation of amendments: The instruction begins on page 128 of the manual. The new language is added based on 1990 amendments to F.S. 806.01(2).
Explanation of amendment: The instruction appears on page 130 of the manual. The underlined sentence is based on a 1988 amendment to F.S. 806.13(1)(a).
Explanation of amendments: The instruction begins on page 147 of the manual. The changes are based on 1990 amendments to F.S. 812.014(2)(c)5.
Explanation of amendments: The instruction begins on page 163 of the manual. The changes are based on 1990 amendments to F.S. 827.04.
Explanation of amendment: This instruction is on pages 171-172 of manual. The underlined sentence is based on a 1988 amendment to F.S. 832.05(4)(a). Wording originally drawn by the committee was criticized in a letter from Mark F. Lewis. The committee agreed with Mr. Lewis and redrafted the paragraph based on his recommendation.
Explanation of amendment: The instruction begins on page 175 of the manual. "F.S. 837.07" is added to the note.
Explanation of amendments: This instruction is on page 199 of the manual. The addition of "and .085" is to ensure that F.S. 849.085 is not overlooked.
Explanation of amendments: This instruction begins on page 245 of the manual. The title and paragraph (1) is revised to conform to the wording of F.S. 893.147(1).
Explanation of amendments: The committee has not reviewed the Schedule in detail. The changes, therefore, do not necessarily fully update it. Only matters specifically brought to the committee's attention are addressed above.
[*]  But see Martin v. State, 342 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1977); Drotar v. State, 433 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), holding that nonhomicide lessers should not be given when the only issue is whether the death was a lawful or unlawful homicide, but should be given if there is an issue of causation, i.e., whether death was caused by defendant's act or some other unconnected cause. When a nonhomicide offense is a necessarily lesser included offense of the homicide offense, an instruction on the lesser may be necessary. See certified question in Barritt v. State, 517 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev'd, 531 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1988).
[*a]  See Scurry v. State, 521 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1988).
[*b]  But see Martin v. State, 342 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1977).
[*c]  But see Smith v. State, 330 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), and Murray v. State, 328 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
[*d]  See Taylor v. State, 444 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1984).
[*e]  Rotenberry v. State, 468 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1985)
[*f]  See Higgins v. State, 565 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1990).
[*g]  But see Richardson v. State, 523 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Sands v. State, 542 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
[*h]  Provided that charged offense is a second degree felony under section 893.13(1)(a)1.