Title: In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC16-724 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—
REPORT 2016-01. 
 
[March 9, 2017] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal 
Cases (Committee) has submitted a report proposing amendments to seven existing 
standard criminal jury instructions and the addition of two new instructions.  We 
have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
 
The Committee proposes amending existing instructions 3.6(a) (Insanity); 
5.1 (Attempt to Commit Crime); 5.2 (Criminal Solicitation); 5.3 (Criminal 
Conspiracy); 6.6 (Attempted Manslaughter by Act); 7.7 (Manslaughter); and 8.25 
(Violation of a Condition of Pretrial Release from a Domestic Violence Charge).1  
                                          
 
 
1.  The Committee’s report initially included a proposal to amend existing 
instruction 28.4(a) (Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Only Damage to an 
Attended Vehicle or Attended Property).  The proposal was subsequently 
withdrawn by the Committee. 
 
 
- 2 - 
The Committee also proposes adding new instructions 3.6(p) (Abnormal Mental 
Condition) and 7.7(a) (Aggravated Manslaughter). 
Before filing its report with the Court, the Committee published its proposals 
for comment.  Upon consideration of the comments submitted, the Committee 
modified some of its proposals.  The Committee did not republish its proposals. 
After the Committee filed its report, the Court published the Committee’s 
proposals for comment.  A comment was received from the Florida Public 
Defender Association regarding existing instructions 3.6(a) and 8.25, and new 
instruction 3.6(p).  A response was filed by the Committee. 
 
Having considered the Committee’s report, the comment filed, and the 
Committee’s response, we hereby authorize for publication and use amended 
instructions 3.6(a), 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.6, 7.7, and 8.25, and new instructions 3.6(p) and 
7.7(a), with the following modification.  We amend the new comment to 
instruction 5.3 to include the phrase “renunciation remains a defense to conspiracy 
to commit a crime where some harm was done.”  The phrase was omitted by the 
Committee, and its addition conforms the new comment for instruction 5.3 with 
the new comment added to instructions 5.1 and 5.2. 
 
 
- 3 - 
Accordingly, the instructions, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, are 
authorized for publication and use.2  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.  New language is 
indicated by underlining and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type.  
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, and 
POLSTON, JJ., concur. 
LAWSON, J., did not participate. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
                                          
 
 
2.  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. 
 
 
- 4 - 
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; and Bart Schneider, Staff 
Liaison, Office of the State Courts Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Julianne M. Holt, Past President, Florida Public Defender Association, Inc., Public 
Defender, 13th Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida, 
 
Responding with Comments 
 
 
 
 
- 5 - 
Appendix 
3.6(a) INSANITY 
An issue in this case is whether (defendant) was insane when the crime 
allegedly was committed. 
A person is considered to be insane when: 
1. 
[He] [She] had a mental infirmity, disease, or defect. 
2. 
Because of this condition 
a. 
[he] [she] did not know what [he] [she] was doing or 
its consequences or 
b. 
although [he] [she] knew what [he] [she] was doing 
and its consequences, [he] [she] did not know it was 
wrong. 
Give if applicable. 
A defendant who believed that what [he] [she] was doing was morally 
right is not insane if the defendant knew that what [he] [she] was doing 
violated societal standards or was against the law. 
All persons are presumed to be sane.  The defendant has the burden of 
proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.  Clear and 
convincing evidence is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion, 
and of such weight that it produces a firm belief, without hesitation, about the 
matter in issue. 
In determining the issue of insanity, you may consider the testimony of 
expert and nonexpert witnesses. The question you must answer is not whether 
the defendant is insane today, or has ever been insane, but whether instead the 
defendant was insane at the time the crime allegedly was committed. 
Give if applicable. 
A defendant who believed that what [he] [she] was doing was morally 
right is not insane if the defendant knew that what [he] [she] was doing 
violated societal standards or was against the law. 
 
 
- 6 - 
Give if applicable. 
Unrestrained passion or ungovernable temper is not insanity, even 
though the normal judgment of the person is overcome by passion or temper. 
*Give if applicable and if requested.  
Although insanity is a defense, mental or psychiatric conditions not 
constituting insanity are not defenses to any crime in this case. Unless there is 
clear and convincing evidence that (defendant) was insane at the time of the 
crime(s) alleged, any evidence of mental illness, an abnormal mental 
condition, or diminished mental capacity may not be taken into consideration 
to show that [he] [she] lacked the specific intent or did not have the state of 
mind essential to proving that [he] [she] committed the crime[s] charged [or 
any lesser crime]. 
Give if applicable. 
If the evidence establishes that the defendant had been adjudged insane 
by a court, and has not been judicially restored to legal sanity, then you 
should assume the defendant was insane at the time of commission of the 
alleged crime, unless the evidence convinces you otherwise. 
Give in all cases. 
If you find that (defendant) committed the crime but you find by clear 
and convincing evidence that the defendant was insane, then you should find 
[him] [her] not guilty by reason of insanity. 
If your verdict is that the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity, 
that does not necessarily mean [he] [she] will be released from custody. I must 
conduct further proceedings to determine if the defendant should be 
committed to a mental hospital, or given other outpatient treatment or 
released. 
Comments 
If drugs or alcohol are involved, see Cirack v. State, 201 So.2d 706 (Fla. 
1967). 
*This paragraph should be read only where it is applicable and appropriate 
under the facts of the case. “[D]iminished capacity is not a viable defense in 
Florida.” Evans v. State, 946 So. 2d 1, 11 (Fla. 2006); Lukehart v. State, 70 So. 3d 
503, 515 (Fla. 2011). Evidence of an abnormal mental condition not constituting 
legal insanity is inadmissible “for the purpose of proving either that the accused 
 
 
- 7 - 
could not or did not entertain the specific intent or state of mind essential to proof 
of the offense, in order to determine whether the crime charged, or a lesser degree 
thereof, was in fact committed.” Chestnut v. State, 538 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1989). In 
some cases, however, such evidence, or something that jurors might interpret as 
such evidence, might be admitted presumably for another purpose or might simply 
be obvious or apparent from the facts of the case. In such cases, it could be 
appropriate in the court’s discretion to give this instruction to avoid the possibility 
of juror confusion.  
See Instruction 3.6(p) for an instruction regarding abnormal mental 
conditions not constituting insanity. 
This instruction was adopted in 1981 [431 So.2d 600], and was amended in 
1986 [483 So.2d 428], 1994 [636 So.2d 502], and 2006 [939 So. 2d 1052], and 
2017. 
 
3.6(p) ABNORMAL MENTAL CONDITION 
*Give if applicable and if requested, and only if insanity is not an issue and 
if no notice of intent to rely on the defense of insanity has been filed. If insanity is 
an issue in the case, give instruction 3.6(a).  
Mental illness, an abnormal mental condition, or diminished mental 
capacity is not a defense to any crime in this case. Any such evidence may not 
be taken into consideration to show that the defendant lacked the specific 
intent or did not have the state of mind essential to proving that [he] [she] 
committed the crime[s] charged [or any lesser crime].  
Comments 
*This instruction should be given only where it is applicable and appropriate 
under the facts of the case. “[D]iminished capacity is not a viable defense in 
Florida.” Evans v. State, 946 So. 2d 1, 11 (Fla. 2006); Lukehart v. State, 70 So. 3d 
503, 515 (Fla. 2011). Evidence of an abnormal mental condition not constituting 
legal insanity is inadmissible “for the purpose of proving either that the accused 
could not or did not entertain the specific intent or state of mind essential to proof 
of the offense, in order to determine whether the crime charged, or a lesser degree 
thereof, was in fact committed.” Chestnut v. State, 538 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1989). In 
some cases, however, such evidence, or something that jurors might interpret as 
such evidence, might be admitted presumably for another purpose or might simply 
 
 
- 8 - 
be obvious or apparent from the facts of the case. In such cases, it could be 
appropriate in the court’s discretion to give this instruction to avoid the possibility 
of juror confusion.  
This instruction was adopted in 2017. 
 
5.1 ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CRIME 
§ 777.04(1), Fla._Stat. 
Use when attempt is charged or is a lesser included offense. 
[To prove the crime of Attempt to Commit (crime charged), the State 
must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:] 
Use when necessary to define “attempt” as an element of another crime 
(such as felony murder). 
[In order to prove that the defendant attempted to commit the crime of 
(crime charged), the State must prove the following beyond a reasonable 
doubt:] 
1. 
(Defendant) did some act toward committing the crime of 
(crime attempted) that went beyond just thinking or talking 
about it. 
2. 
[He] [She] would have committed the crime except that 
a. 
[someone prevented [him] [her] from committing the 
crime of (crime charged).] 
[or] 
b. 
[[he] [she] failed.] 
Give if applicable. Affirmative Defense. § 777.04(5)(a), Fla._Stat. Carroll v. 
State, 680 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Harriman v. State, 174 So. 3d 1044 
(Fla. 1st DCA 2015). 
It is not an a defense to the crime of attempt to commit (crime charged) if 
the defendant abandoned [his] [her] attempt to commit the offense or 
otherwise prevented its commission, under circumstances indicating a 
complete and voluntary renunciation of [his] [her] criminal purpose. 
 
 
- 9 - 
Renunciation is not complete and voluntary where the defendant failed 
to complete the crime because of unanticipated difficulties, unexpected 
resistance, a decision to postpone the crime to another time, or circumstances 
known by the defendant that increased the probability of being apprehended. 
If you find that the defendant proved by a preponderance of the 
evidence that [he] [she] abandoned [his] [her] attempt to commit the offense 
or otherwise prevented its commission, under circumstances indicating a 
complete and voluntary renunciation of [his] [her] criminal purpose, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime attempted). 
If the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 
[he] [she] abandoned [his] [her] attempt to commit the offense or that [he] 
[she] otherwise prevented its commission, under circumstances indicating a 
complete and voluntary renunciation of [his] [her] criminal purpose, you 
should find [him] [her] guilty of (crime attempted) if all the elements of the 
charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Lesser Included Offenses 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
Comments 
As of November 2015, no case law addressed the issue of whether 
renunciation remains a defense to an attempt to commit a crime where some harm 
was done. 
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2017. 
 
5.2 CRIMINAL SOLICITATION 
§ 777.04(2), Fla._Stat. 
To prove the crime of Criminal Solicitation, the State must prove the 
following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) solicited (person alleged) to commit (offense 
solicited). 
2. 
During the solicitation, (defendant) 
 
 
- 10 - 
[commanded] 
[encouraged] 
[hired] 
[requested] 
 
(person alleged) to engage in specific conduct, which would 
constitute the commission of (offense solicited) or an attempt 
to commit (offense solicited). 
It is not necessary that the defendant do any act in furtherance of the 
offense solicited. 
Define the crime solicited. If it is Burglary, also define crime that was object 
of the burglary. Also define "attempt" (see 5.1). 
Definition 
To “solicit” means to ask earnestly or to try to induce the person 
solicited to do the thing solicitedanother person to engage in specific conduct. 
Affirmative Defense. Give if applicable. § 777.04(5)(b), Fla._Stat. Carroll v. 
State, 680 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Harriman v. State, 174 So. 3d 1044 
(Fla. 1st DCA 2015). 
It is a defense to the charge of cCriminal sSolicitation if the defendant, 
after soliciting (person solicited) to commit the (offense solicited), persuaded 
(person solicited) not to do so, or otherwise prevented commission of the 
offense, under circumstances indicating a complete and voluntary 
renunciation of [his] [her] criminal purpose. 
Renunciation is not complete and voluntary where the crime solicited 
was not completed because of unanticipated difficulties, unexpected 
resistance, a decision to postpone the crime to another time, or circumstances 
known by the defendant that increased the probability of being apprehended. 
If you find that the defendant proved by a preponderance of the 
evidence that [he] [she] persuaded (person solicited) not to commit the (offense 
solicited), or otherwise prevented commission of the (offense solicited), under 
circumstances indicating a complete and voluntary renunciation of [his] [her] 
criminal purpose, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of (crime solicited).  
If the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 
[he] [she] persuaded (person solicited) not to commit the (offense solicited), or 
 
 
- 11 - 
that [he] [she] did not otherwise prevent commission of the (offense solicited), 
under circumstances indicating a complete and voluntary renunciation of [his] 
[her] criminal purpose, you should find [him] [her] guilty of (crime solicited), 
if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.     
Lesser Included Offenses 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
Comments 
As of November 2015, no case law addressed the issue of whether 
renunciation remains a defense to a solicitation to commit a crime where some 
harm was done. 
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2017. 
 
5.3 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY 
§ 777.04(3), Fla._Stat. 
To prove the crime of Criminal Conspiracy, the State must prove the 
following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
The intent of (defendant) was that the offense of (object of 
conspiracy) would be committed. 
If there is an issue as to whether the subject of the conspiracy was a crime, it 
may be necessary to define that crime. 
 
2. 
In order to carry out the intent (defendant) 
[agreed] 
[conspired] 
[combined] 
[confederated] 
 
with (person[s] alleged) to cause (object of conspiracy) to be 
committed either by them, or one of them, or by some other 
person. 
 
 
- 12 - 
 
It is not necessary that the 
 
[agreement] 
[conspiracy] 
[combination] 
[confederation] 
 
to commit (object of conspiracy) be expressed in any particular 
words or that words pass between the conspirators. 
 
It is not necessary that the defendant do any act in furtherance of 
the offense conspired. 
Affirmative Defense. Give if applicable. § 777.04(5)(c), Fla._Stat. Carroll v. 
State, 680 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Harriman v. State, 174 So. 3d 1044 
(Fla. 1st DCA 2015). 
It is a defense to the charge of cCriminal cConspiracy that (defendant), 
after conspiring with one or more persons to commit the (object of conspiracy), 
persuaded (person alleged) not to do so, or otherwise prevented commission of 
the (object of conspiracy), under circumstances indicating a complete and 
voluntary renunciation of [his] [her] criminal purpose. 
Renunciation is not complete and voluntary where the crime that was 
conspired to was not completed because of unanticipated difficulties, 
unexpected resistance, a decision to postpone the crime to another time, or 
circumstances known by the defendant that increased the probability of being 
apprehended. 
If you find that the defendant proved by a preponderance of the 
evidence that [he] [she] persuaded (person alleged) not to commit the (object of 
conspiracy), or otherwise prevented commission of the (object of conspiracy), 
under circumstances indicating a complete and voluntary renunciation of [his] 
[her] criminal purpose, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of Conspiracy to 
Commit (name of crime). 
If the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 
[he] [she] persuaded (person alleged) not to commit the (object of conspiracy), 
or that [he] [she] did not otherwise prevent commission of the (object of 
conspiracy), under circumstances indicating a complete and voluntary 
renunciation of [his] [her] criminal purpose, you should find [him] [her] guilty 
 
 
- 13 - 
of Conspiracy to Commit (name of crime), if all the elements of the charge 
have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Lesser Included Offenses 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
Comments 
As of November 2015, no case law addressed the issue of whether 
renunciation remains a defense to conspiracy to commit a crime where some harm 
was done. 
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2017. 
 
6.6 ATTEMPTED MANSLAUGHTER BY ACT 
§§ 782.07 and 777.04, Fla. Stat. 
To prove the crime of Attempted Manslaughter by Act, the State must 
prove the following element beyond a reasonable doubt: 
(Defendant) intentionally committed an act [or procured the commission 
of an act], which would have resulted in the death of (victim) except that 
someone prevented (defendant) from killing (victim) or [he] [she] failed to do 
so. 
However, the defendant cannot be guilty of Attempted Manslaughter by 
Act by committing a merely negligent act. Each of us has a duty to act 
reasonably and use ordinary care toward others. If there is a violation of that 
duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. 
It is not an attempt to commit manslaughter if the defendant abandoned 
the attempt to commit the offense or otherwise prevented its commission 
under circumstances indicating a complete and voluntary renunciation of [his] 
[her] criminal purpose. 
Give only if procurement is alleged and proven. 
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon, or cause a 
person to do something. 
 
 
- 14 - 
In order to convict of Attempted Manslaughter by Act it is not 
necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause 
death, only an intent to commit an act which would have caused death and 
was not justifiable or excusable attempted homicide, as I have previously 
explained those termsinstructed you. (The explanations of justifiable attempted 
homicide and excusable attempted homicide are in Instruction 6.1, Introduction to 
Attempted Homicide.) 
Lesser Included Offenses 
ATTEMPTED MANSLAUGHTER BY ACT— 
782.07 and 777.04 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
None 
 
 
 
 
Aggravated  
bBattery 
784.045 
8.4 
 
Felony bBattery 
784.041 
8.5 
 
Battery 
784.03 
8.3 
 
Assault 
784.011 
8.1 
Comments 
In the event of any reinstruction on attempted voluntary manslaughter by 
act, the instructions on justifiable and excusable attempted homicide as previously 
given should be given at the same time. Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 
1965). 
There is no crime of attempted involuntary manslaughter (i.e., manslaughter 
by culpable negligence. See Taylor v. State, 444 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1983)). 
See Instruction 5.1 for the affirmative defense of renunciation. 
This instruction was adopted in 1994 [636 So. 2d 502] and amended in 2014 
[132 So. 3d 1124] and 2017. 
 
 
 
- 15 - 
7.7 MANSLAUGHTER 
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat. 
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following 
two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Victim) is dead. 
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof. 
2. 
a. 
(Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that 
caused the death of (victim). 
b. 
(Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused 
the death of (victim). 
c. 
The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable 
negligence of (defendant). 
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a 
merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable 
homicide, as I have previously instructed you.: (The explanations of justifiable 
homicide and excusable homicide are in Instruction 7.1, Introduction to 
Homicide.) 
Negligence: 
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others.  If there is a 
violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation 
is negligence. 
Justifiable Homicide: 
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if 
necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony 
upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the 
defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat. 
Excusable Homicide: 
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under 
any one of the following three circumstances: 
 
 
- 16 - 
1. 
When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune 
in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary 
caution and without any unlawful intent, or 
2. 
When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the 
heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient 
provocation, or 
3. 
When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune 
resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is 
not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual 
manner. 
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat. 
Give only if 2a alleged and proved. 
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the 
State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent 
to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and 
which caused death.   
Give only if 2b alleged and proved. 
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a 
person to do something. 
Give only if 2c alleged and proved. 
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you.  Each of us has a duty 
to act reasonably toward others.  If there is a violation of that duty, without 
any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.  But culpable 
negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others.  In order 
for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant.  Culpable 
negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or 
of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire 
want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to 
consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly 
careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an 
indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation 
of such rights. 
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter 
disregard for the safety of others.  Culpable negligence is consciously doing an 
act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or 
 
 
- 17 - 
reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily 
injury. 
§ 782.07(2)-(4), Fla. Stat.  Enhanced penalty if 2c alleged and proved.  Give 
a, b, or c, as applicable. 
If you find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, you must then 
determine whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt 
that: 
a. 
(Victim) was at the time [an elderly person] [a disabled 
adult] whose death was caused by the neglect of (defendant), 
a caregiver.  
b. 
(Victim) was a child whose death was caused by the neglect 
of (defendant), a caregiver. 
c. 
(Victim) was at the time [an officer] [a firefighter] [an 
emergency medical technician] [a paramedic] who was at 
the time performing duties that were within the course of 
[his] [her] employment.  The court now instructs you that 
(official title of victim) is [an officer] [a firefighter] [an 
emergency medical technician] [a paramedic]. 
Definitions.  Give if applicable. 
“Child” means any person under the age of 18 years. 
§782.03, Fla. Stat. 
“Dangerous weapon” is any weapon that, taking into account the 
manner in which it was used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm. 
“Elderly person” means a person 60 years of age or older who is 
suffering from the infirmities of aging as manifested by advanced age, organic 
brain damage, or physical, mental, or emotional dysfunctioning, to the extent 
that the ability of the person to provide adequately for the person=s own care 
or protection is impaired. 
“Disabled adult” means a person 18 years of age or older who suffers 
from a condition of physical or mental incapacitation due to developmental 
disability, organic brain damage, or mental illness, or who has one or more 
physical or mental limitations that restrict the person’s ability to perform the 
normal activities of daily living. 
 
 
- 18 - 
“Facility” means any location providing day or residential care or 
treatment for elderly persons or disabled adults.  The term “facility” may 
include, but is not limited to, any hospital, training center, state institution, 
nursing home, assisted living facility, adult family-care home, adult day care 
center, group home, mental health treatment center, or continuing care 
community. 
As applied to an Elderly Person or a Disabled Adult. 
“Caregiver” means a person who has been entrusted with or has 
assumed responsibility for the care or the property of an elderly person or a 
disabled adult.  “Caregiver” includes, but is not limited to, relatives, court-
appointed or voluntary guardians, adult household members, neighbors, 
health care providers, and employees and volunteers of facilities. 
As applied to a Child. 
“Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person 
responsible for a child’s welfare. 
§ 825.102(3)(a) or § 827.03(3)(a), Fla. Stat.  Give 1 or 2 as applicable. 
“Neglect of [a child”] [an elderly person”] [a disabled adult”] means: 
1. 
A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide [a child] [an 
elderly person] [a disabled adult] with the care, supervision, 
and services necessary to maintain [a child’s] [an elderly 
person’s] [a disabled adult’s] physical and mental health, 
including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, 
shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a 
prudent person would consider essential for the well-being 
of the [child] [elderly person] [disabled adult]; 
or  
2. 
A caregiver’s failure to make reasonable effort to protect [a 
child] [an elderly person] [a disabled adult] from abuse, 
neglect or exploitation by another person. 
Repeated conduct or a single incident or omission by a caregiver that 
results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, a substantial risk of 
death of [a child] [an elderly person] [a disabled adult] may be considered in 
determining neglect. 
 
 
- 19 - 
Definitions.  As applied to Designated Personnel. 
§ 112.191 and § 633.35, Fla. Stat. 
“Firefighter” means any full-time duly employed uniformed firefighter 
employed by an employer, whose primary duty is the prevention and 
extinguishing of fires, the protection of life and property there from, the 
enforcement of municipal, county, and state fire prevention codes, as well as 
the enforcement of any law pertaining to the prevention and control of fires, 
who is certified by the Division of State Fire Marshal of the Department of 
Financial Services, who is a member of a duly constituted fire department of 
such employer or who is a volunteer firefighter. 
§ 943.10(14), Fla. Stat. 
“Officer” means any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-
time or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional 
probation officer. 
§ 401.23, Fla. Stat. 
“Emergency Medical Technician” means a person who is certified by 
the Department of Health to perform basic life support.  
§ 401.23, Fla. Stat. 
“Paramedic” means a person who is certified by the Department of 
Health to perform basic and advanced life support.  
Lesser Included Offenses 
MANSLAUGHTER - 782.07 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
None 
 
 
 
 
Vehicular homicide 
782.071 
7.9 
 
Vessel homicide 
782.072 
7.9 
 
(Nonhomicide lessers) 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Aggravated assault 
784.021 
8.2 
 
Battery 
 
784.03 
8.3 
 
Assault 
784.011 
8.1 
 
Culpable negligence 
784.05 
8.9 
 
 
- 20 - 
Comments 
In the event of any reinstruction on manslaughter, the instructions on 
justifiable and excusable homicide as previously given should be given at the same 
time. Hedges v. State, 172 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1965). 
In appropriate cases, an instruction on transferred intent should be given. 
Trial judges should carefully study See Eversley v. State, 748 So.2d 963 
(Fla. 1999), in any manslaughter case in which causation is an issue to determine if 
a special jury instruction on causation is needed. 
To be found guilty of Aggravated Manslaughter, there is no statutory 
requirement that the defendant have knowledge of the classification of the victim; 
therefore, the schedule of lesser included offenses does not include Aggravated 
Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer, Aggravated Assault on a Law Enforcement 
Officer, Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer, or Assault on a Law Enforcement 
Officer.  Those offenses have a different definition of officer.  Additionally, the 
excluded lesser included offenses require proof of knowing that the commission of 
the offense was on an officer who was engaged in the lawful performance of a 
legal duty. 
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985 [477 So.2d 985], 
1992 [603 So.2d 1175], 1994 [636 So.2d 502], 2005 [911 So.2d 1220], 2006 [946 
So.2d 1061], 2008 [997 So. 2d 403], 2010 [41 So.3d 853], and 2011 [75 So. 3d 
210], and 2017. 
 
7.7(a) AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER 
§ 782.07(2), § 782.07(3), and § 782.07(4), Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter, the State must prove 
the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Victim) is dead. 
2. 
The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence 
of (defendant). 
 
 
- 21 - 
Give 3a or 3b as applicable. 
3. 
a. 
(Victim) was at the time [an elderly person] [a disabled 
adult] [a child] and (victim’s) death was caused by the 
neglect of (defendant), a caregiver for (victim). 
b. 
(Victim) was [an officer] [a firefighter] [an emergency 
medical technician] [a paramedic] who was at the 
time performing duties that were within the course of 
[his] [her] employment. 
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a 
violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation 
is negligence. The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by causing a 
death because of a merely negligent act. But culpable negligence is more than 
a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be 
culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of 
conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons 
exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a 
presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows 
wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and 
welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is 
equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or 
omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of 
others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course 
of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have 
known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. 
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter if the killing was either 
justifiable or excusable homicide, as I have previously instructed you. (The 
explanations of justifiable homicide and excusable homicide are in Instruction 7.1, 
Introduction to Homicide.) 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
§ 825.101(4), Fla. Stat. 
“Elderly person” means a person 60 years of age or older who is 
suffering from the infirmities of aging as manifested by advanced age, organic 
brain damage, or physical, mental, or emotional dysfunctioning, to the extent 
that the ability of the person to provide adequately for the person’s own care 
or protection is impaired. 
 
 
- 22 - 
§ 825.101(3), Fla. Stat. 
“Disabled adult” means a person 18 years of age or older who suffers 
from a condition of physical or mental incapacitation due to developmental 
disability, organic brain damage, or mental illness, or who has one or more 
physical or mental limitations that restrict the person’s ability to perform the 
normal activities of daily living. 
§ 827.01(2), Fla. Stat. 
“Child” means any person under the age of 18 years. 
As applied to an Elderly Person or a Disabled Adult. § 825.101(2), Fla. Stat. 
“Caregiver” means a person who has been entrusted with or has 
assumed responsibility for the care or the property of an elderly person or a 
disabled adult.  “Caregiver” includes, but is not limited to, relatives, court-
appointed or voluntary guardians, adult household members, neighbors, 
health care providers, and employees and volunteers of facilities. 
§ 825.101(6), Fla. Stat. 
“Facility” means any location providing day or residential care or 
treatment for elderly persons or disabled adults.  The term “facility” may 
include, but is not limited to, any hospital, training center, state institution, 
nursing home, assisted living facility, adult family-care home, adult day care 
center, group home, mental health treatment center, or continuing care 
community. 
As applied to a Child. § 827.01(1), Fla. Stat. 
“Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person 
responsible for a child’s welfare. 
§ 825.102(3)(a) or § 827.03(3)(e), Fla. Stat. 
“Neglect of [a child”] [an elderly person”] [a disabled adult”] means: 
1. 
A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide [a child] [an 
elderly person] [a disabled adult] with the care, supervision, 
and services necessary to maintain [a child’s] [an elderly 
person’s] [a disabled adult’s] physical and mental health, 
including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, 
shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a 
prudent person would consider essential for the well-being 
of the [child] [elderly person] [disabled adult]; 
 
 
- 23 - 
or 
2. 
A caregiver’s failure to make reasonable effort to protect [a 
child] [an elderly person] [a disabled adult] from abuse, 
neglect or exploitation by another person. 
Neglect may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or 
omission by a caregiver that results in, or could reasonably be expected to 
result in, serious physical or [psychological] [mental] injury, or a substantial 
risk of death to [a child] [an elderly person] [a disabled adult]. 
Definitions. As applied to Designated Personnel. 
§ 943.10(14), Fla. Stat. See § 943.10, Fla. Stat., for further definitions.   
“Officer” means any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-
time or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional 
probation officer. 
§ 112.191 and § 633.35, Fla. Stat. 
“Firefighter” means any full-time duly employed uniformed firefighter 
employed by an employer, whose primary duty is the prevention and 
extinguishing of fires, the protection of life and property therefrom, the 
enforcement of municipal, county, and state fire prevention codes, as well as 
the enforcement of any law pertaining to the prevention and control of fires, 
who is certified by the Division of State Fire Marshal of the Department of 
Financial Services, who is a member of a duly constituted fire department of 
such employer or who is a volunteer firefighter. 
§ 401.23, Fla. Stat. 
“Emergency Medical Technician” means a person who is certified by 
the Department of Health to perform basic life support. 
§ 401.23, Fla. Stat. 
“Paramedic” means a person who is certified by the Department of 
Health to perform basic and advanced life support. 
 
 
- 24 - 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER — 782.07(2), 782.07(3), AND 782.07(4) 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
Manslaughter 
 
782.07 
7.7 
*Neglect by Culpable 
Negligence of a[n] 
[Elderly Person] 
[Disabled Adult] [Child] 
Causing Great Bodily 
Harm, Permanent 
Disability, or Permanent 
Disfigurement 
 
825.102(3)(b)
or 
827.03(2)(b) 
29.22 
or 
16.5 
*Neglect by Culpable 
Negligence of a[n] 
[Elderly Person] 
[Disabled Adult] [Child] 
Without Causing Great 
Bodily Harm, 
Permanent Disability, or 
Permanent 
Disfigurement 
 
825.102(3)(c)
or 
827.03(2)(d) 
29.22 
or 
16.6 
*Culpable Negligence 
Inflicting Injury 
 
784.05(2) 
8.9 
*Culpable Negligence 
Exposing Another to 
Injury 
 
784.05(1) 
8.9 
Comments 
*Non-homicide lesser-included offenses do not have to be given if the 
parties agree causation is not in dispute and that the victim is dead. 
There is no statutory requirement that the defendant have knowledge of 
victim’s status and as of November 2015, there was no case law addressing that 
issue.   
This instruction was adopted in 2017. 
 
 
- 25 - 
 
8.25 VIOLATION OF A CONDITION OF PRETRIAL RELEASE FROM A 
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE 
§ 741.29(6), Fla. Stat. 
To prove the crime of Violation of a Condition of Pretrial Release from 
a Domestic Violence Charge, the State must prove the following four elements 
beyond a reasonable doubt: 
1. 
(Defendant) was arrested for an act of domestic violence. 
2. 
Before [his] [her] trial, (defendant’s) release on the domestic 
violence charge was set with a condition of (insert condition 
of pretrial release in Fla. Stat. 903.047). 
3. 
(Defendant) knew that a condition of [his] [her] pretrial 
release was (insert condition). 
4. 
(Defendant) willfully violated that condition of pretrial 
release by (insert the manner in which the defendant is alleged 
to have violated pretrial release). 
Definitions. 
§ 741.28, Fla. Stat. 
“Domestic violence” means any assault, aggravated assault, battery, 
aggravated battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated 
stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in 
physical injury or death of one family or household member by another 
family or household member. 
“Family or household members” means spouses, former spouses, 
persons related by blood or marriage, persons who are presently residing 
together as if a family or who have resided together in the past as if a family, 
and persons who are parents of a child in common regardless of whether they 
have been married. With the exception of persons who have a child in 
common, the family or household members must be currently residing or 
have in the past resided together in the same single dwelling unit. 
Patterson v. State, 512 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1stst DCA 1987).  
“Willfully” means knowingly, intentionally and purposely. 
 
 
- 26 - 
Give as applicable and if the defendant is charged with violating a no 
contact order. § 903.047(1)(b), Fla. Stat. 
An order of “no contact” is effective immediately and is valid for the 
duration of the pretrial release or until it is modified by a judge.  
Unless otherwise stated by the judge, “no contact” means it is 
prohibited for (defendant) to have communicated orally or in any written 
form, either in person, telephonically, electronically, or in any other manner, 
either directly or indirectly through a third person, with [(victim)] [or] [(any 
other person named in the order)].  
It is also a violation of a “no contact” order if (defendant): 
a. 
had physical or violent contact with (victim) [or] [(other 
named person)] or [his] [or] [her] property. 
b. 
was within 500 feet of (victim’s) [or] [(other named person’s)] 
residence, even if the defendant and (victim) [or] [(other 
named person)] share the residence. 
c. 
was within 500 feet of (victim’s) [or] [(other named person’s)] 
[vehicle] [place of employment] [or] [(a specified place 
frequented regularly by such person)]. 
Lesser Included Offenses 
VIOLATION OF A CONDITION OF PRETRIAL RELEASE FROM A 
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE — 741.29(6) 
CATEGORY 
ONE 
CATEGORY 
TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
None 
 
 
 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
 
5.1 
Comment 
This instruction was adopted in 2014 [141 So. 3d 1201] and amended in 
2017.