Title: In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases – Report No. 2009-03

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC09-946 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES— 
REPORT NO. 2009-03. 
 
[July 9, 2009] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal 
Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to standard jury instruction 
28.1(a), Driving Under the Influence Causing Property Damage or Injury, and asks 
that the Court approve the amended standard instruction.  We have jurisdiction.  
See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
 
On February 26, 2009, the Court authorized for use and publication new 
criminal jury instruction 28.1(a), in addition to numerous other instructions.  In re 
Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2008-08, 6 So. 3d 574 
(Fla. 2009).1  The Committee filed a new report on June 1, 2009, requesting that 
the Court further amend instruction 28.1(a) and expedite the case.  We granted the 
                                          
 
1.  A corrected opinion was issued on April 30, 2009, which addressed 
minor grammatical issues. 
 
- 2 - 
motion to expedite and, as discussed below, authorize instruction 28.1(a) for 
publication and use as requested by the Committee in report number 2009-03. 
As submitted by the Committee to the Court in report number 2008-08, 
proposed instruction 28.1(a) did not include the presumption of impairment 
established by section 316.1934(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2008).  That presumption, 
previously approved by the Committee for inclusion in report number 2008-08 and 
now proposed as an amendment to instruction 28.1(a) by the Committee, provides 
as follows: 
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. 
 
Accordingly, we correct the Committee’s inadvertent exclusion of the presumption 
of impairment under section 316.1934(2)(c) from its prior submission. 
In authorizing the publication and use of instruction 28.1(a) as set forth in 
the appendix to this opinion, we express no opinion on the correctness of the 
instruction and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses 
neither requesting additional or alternative instructions nor contesting the legal 
correctness of the instruction.  We further caution all interested parties that any 
 
- 3 - 
notes and comments associated with the instruction reflects 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.  The 
instruction as set forth in the appendix2 shall be effective when this opinion 
becomes final.  However, because the Court did not publish this amendment for 
comment prior to its authorization for publication and use, interested persons shall 
have sixty days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the 
Court.3 
It is so ordered.
                                          
 
 
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. 
 
 
3.  An original and nine paper copies of all comments must be filed with the 
Court on or before September 7, 2009, with a certificate of service verifying that a 
copy has been served on the Committee Chair, The Honorable Lisa T. Munyon, 
C/O Les Garringer, Office of the General Counsel, 500 S. Duval Street, 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925, as well as separate request for oral argument if 
the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may 
be scheduled in this case.  The Committee Chair has until September 28, 2009, to 
file a response to any comments filed by interested persons with the Court.  
Electronic copies of all comments also must be filed in accordance with the 
Court’s administrative order In re Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of 
Documents, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-84 (Sept. 13, 2004) (on file with 
Clerk, Fla. Sup.Ct.). 
 
- 4 - 
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
Original Proceeding – Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases 
 
Judge Lisa T. Munyon, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury 
Instructions in Criminal Cases, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orlando, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
- 5 - 
 
APPENDIX 
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 b 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 [damage to the property of (victim)] 
[injury to the person of (victim)]. 
 
 
Give if applicable.  (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. 
 
 
- 6 - 
b. 
the defendant was accompanied in the vehicle by a person 
under the age of 18 years at the time of the driving under 
the influence. 
 
 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
 
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. 
 
 
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. 
 
 
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. 
 
 
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 § 316.1934(2)(a), (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. 
 
 
- 7 - 
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. 
 
 
 
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 
 
- 8 - 
 
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.