Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC13-1914

____________

IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—

REPORT NO. 2013-06.

[August 28, 2014]

CORRECTED OPINION

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 for 

publication and use. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

Following publication of its proposals in The Florida Bar News, the 

Committee filed its report with the Court. The Committee proposes amending the 

following jury instructions: 6.1 (Introduction to Attempted Homicide); 11.14, 

11.14(a)-(g) (Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply with Registration 

Requirements); 11.15, 11.15(a) (Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator); 

11.15(b)-(k) (Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply with Registration 

Requirements); and 22.15 ([Manufacturing] [Owning] [Storing] [Keeping] 
- 2 -

[Possession of] [Permitting the Operation of] [Selling] [Leasing] [Transporting] a 

Slot Machine). In addition, the Committee proposes the following new jury 

instructions: 10.20 ([Care] [Custody] [Possession] [Control] of [A Firearm] 

[Ammunition] While a Final Injunction for [Domestic Violence] [Stalking] 

[Cyberstalking] is in Effect); 10.21 (Improper Exhibition of a [Weapon] [Firearm] 

[At a School-Sponsored Event] [On School Property] [On a School Bus] [At a 

School Bus Stop] [Within 1,000 Feet of a School]); 11.19 (Sexual Misconduct 

Between Detention Facility Employees and Inmates); and 20.20 (Mortgage Fraud). 

One comment was received by the Committee with respect to the Failure to 

Register instructions, and three comments were received with respect to the Slot 

Machine proposal. Upon review of the comments, the Committee made minor 

changes to the Slot Machine proposal that did not warrant republication. The 

Court did not publish the proposals after they were filed.

Having considered the Committee’s report and the comments submitted to 

the Committee, we amend the standard jury instructions as proposed by the 

Committee except as noted otherwise, and authorize the amended jury instructions 

for publication and use.

New standard jury instruction 11.19 (Sexual Misconduct Between Detention 

Facility Employees and Inmates) is authorized as proposed except that the citations 

for the definitions of “County detention facility,” “County residential probation 
- 3 -

center,” and “Municipal detention facility,” are revised to reference the correct 

statutes. In addition, the definition of “Municipal detention facility” is revised to 

include in pertinent part, “a violation of municipal laws or ordinances.”

The new and amended 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. 

 

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.
- 4 -

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS. 

Original Proceedings – Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in 

Criminal Cases

Judge Jerri Lynn Collins, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury 

Instructions in Criminal Cases, Sanford, Florida, and Judge Joseph Anthony 

Bulone, Past Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in 

Criminal Cases, Clearwater, Florida, and Bart Schneider, Senior Attorney, Office 

of the States Court Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Petitioner
- 5 -

APPENDIX

6.1 INTRODUCTION TO ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE

Read in all attempted murder and attempted manslaughter by act cases.

In this case (defendant) is accused of (crime charged).

Give degrees as applicable.

Attempted murder in the first degree includes the lesser crimes of 

attempted murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the third 

degree, and attempted voluntary manslaughter by act, all of which are forms 

of attempted homicide and all of which are unlawful.

An attempted killing homicide that is excusable or was committed by 

the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful. 

If you find that there was an attempted killing homicide of (victim) by

(defendant), you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the 

attempted killing homicide in deciding if whether it was attempted first degree 

murder, or attempted second degree murder, or attempted third degree 

murder, or attempted voluntary manslaughter by act, or whether the 

attempted killing homicide was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of 

deadly force.

JUSTIFIABLE ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE

The An attempted killing homicide of a human being is justifiable 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 attempted killing homicide.

EXCUSABLE ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE

The An attempted killing homicide of a human being is excusable and 

therefore lawful under any one of the three following circumstances:

1. When the attempted killing homicide is committed by accident 

and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with 

usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
- 6 -

2. When the attempted killing homicide occurs by accident and 

misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient 

provocation, or

3. When the attempted killing homicide is committed by accident 

and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous 

weapon is not used and the attempted killing is not done in a cruel 

and unusual manner.

Definition

“Dangerous weapon” is any weapon that, taking into account the 

manner in which it is used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

I now instruct you on the circumstances that must be proved before 

defendant may be found guilty of [attempted first degree murder] [or] 

[attempted second degree murder] [or] attempted manslaughter by act or any 

lesser included crime.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 1994 and amended in 2014.

10.20 [CARE] [CUSTODY] [POSSESSION] [CONTROL] OF [A FIREARM] 

[AMMUNITION] WHILE A FINAL INJUNCTION FOR [DOMESTIC 

VIOLENCE] [STALKING] [CYBERSTALKING] IS IN EFFECT

§ 790.233(1), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the 

following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. A judge issued a final injunction for protection against [domestic 

violence] [stalking] [cyberstalking] against (defendant).

2. The final injunction had been served upon (defendant) or 

(defendant) had acknowledged receipt.

3. While the final injunction was in force and effect, (defendant) had 

[ammunition] [a firearm] in [his] [her] care, custody, possession, 

or control.
- 7 -

Definitions. Give as applicable.

Fla. Stat. § 790.001(6).

“Firearm” means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is 

designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of 

an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any firearm muffler 

or firearm silencer; any destructive device; any machine gun. [The term 

“firearm” does not include an antique firearm unless the antique firearm is 

used in the commission of a crime.] See Fla. Stat. § 790.001(1) for the definition 

of antique firearm. 

Fla. Stat. § 790.001(4)

“Destructive device” means any bomb, grenade, mine, rocket, missile, 

pipebomb, or similar device containing an explosive, incendiary, or poison gas 

and includes any frangible container filled with an explosive, incendiary, 

explosive gas, or expanding gas, which is designed or so constructed as to 

explode by such filler and is capable of causing bodily harm or property 

damage; any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in 

converting any device into a destructive device and from which a destructive 

device may be readily assembled; any device declared a destructive device by 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; any type of weapon which 

will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the 

action of any explosive and which has a barrel with a bore of one-half inch or 

more in diameter; and ammunition for such destructive devices, but not 

including shotgun shells or any other ammunition designed for use in a 

firearm other than a destructive device. 

“Destructive device” does not include: 

a. A device which is not designed, redesigned, used, or intended for 

use as a weapon;

b. Any device, although originally designed as a weapon, which is 

redesigned so that it may be used solely as a signaling, linethrowing, safety, or similar device;

c. Any shotgun other than a short-barreled shotgun; or

d. Any nonautomatic rifle (other than a short-barreled rifle) 

generally recognized or particularly suitable for use for the 

hunting of big game.
- 8 -

Fla. Stat. § 790.001(19)

“Ammunition” means an object consisting of all of the following:

a. A fixed metallic or nonmetallic hull or casing containing a primer;

b. One or more projectiles, one or more bullets, or shot;

c. Gunpowder.

“Care” and “custody” mean immediate charge and control exercised by 

a person over the named item. The terms care, custody, and control may be 

used interchangeably.

Possession.

There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and 

constructive possession.

Actual possession. 

Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the 

object and

a. the object is in the hand of or on the person, or

b. the object is in a container in the hand of or on the person, 

or

c. the object is so close as to be within ready reach and is 

under the control of the person.

Constructive possession.

Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of 

the object, the object is in a place over which the person has control, and the 

person has the ability to control the object.

Give if applicable.

Mere proximity to an object is not sufficient to establish control over 

that object when the object is in a place that the person does not control.

Give if applicable.

In order to establish constructive possession of an object that was in a 

place (defendant) did not control, the State must prove (defendant) (1) knew 

that the object was within [his] [her] presence and (2) exercised control or 

ownership over the object itself.
- 9 -

Joint possession.

Possession may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be 

aware of the presence of an object and may jointly exercise control over it. In 

that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that object. 

Inferences. 

 Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); 

Meme v. State, 72 So. 3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). 

If you find that (defendant):

a. had direct physical custody of the [ammunition] [firearm], or

b. was within ready reach of the [ammunition] [ firearm] and the 

[ammunition] [firearm] was under [his] [her] control, or

c. had exclusive control of the place where the [ammunition] [firearm]

was located, you may infer that [he] [she] was aware of the presence 

of the [ammunition] [ firearm] and had the ability to control [it]

[them].

you may infer that [he] [she] was aware of the presence of the 

[ammunition] [ firearm] and had the ability to control [it] [them]. 

If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where 

[ammunition] [a firearm] was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had

knowledge of the presence of the [ammunition] [firearm] or the ability to 

control [it] [them], in the absence of other incriminating evidence. 

Give if applicable. Duncan v. State, 986 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). 

However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the 

[ammunition] [firearm] and had the ability to control [it] [them] if [he] [she] 

had joint control over the place where the [ammunition] [firearm]was located, 

and the [ammunition] [firearm]was located in a common area in plain view 

and in the presence of the defendant. 
- 10 -

Lesser Included Offenses

[CARE] [CUSTODY] [POSSESSION] [CONTROL] OF [A FIREARM] 

[AMMUNITION] WHILE A FINAL INJUNCTION FOR [DOMESTIC 

VIOLENCE] [STALKING] [CYBERSTALKING] IS IN EFFECT

790.233(1)

CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO.

None

Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1

Comment

This crime does not apply to a state or local officer as defined in Fla. Stat. 

943.10(14), holding an active certification, who received or possessed a firearm or 

ammunition for use in performing official duties on behalf of the officer’s 

employing agency, unless otherwise prohibited by the employing agency.

This instruction was adopted in 2014.

10.21 IMPROPER EXHIBITION OF A [WEAPON] [FIREARM] 

[AT A SCHOOL-SPONSORED EVENT] [ON SCHOOL PROPERTY] 

[ON A SCHOOL BUS] [AT A SCHOOL BUS STOP]

[WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF A SCHOOL]

§ 790.115(1), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Improper Exhibition of a [Weapon] [Firearm] 

[Sword] [Sword Cane] [Electric Weapon or Device] [Destructive Device] [at] 

[on] [within] [(insert prohibited place in Fla. Stat. 790.115(1))], the State must 

prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. (Defendant) had or carried a[n] [weapon] [firearm] [sword] [sword 

cane] [electric weapon or device] [destructive device].

2. (Defendant) exhibited the [weapon] [firearm] [sword] [sword cane] 

[electric weapon or device] [destructive device] in a rude, careless, 

angry, or threatening manner.

3. (Defendant) did so in the presence of one or more persons. 

4. At the time, (defendant) was [at a school-sponsored event] [on the 

grounds [or facilities] of a [school] [school bus]] [school bus stop]] 
- 11 -

[within 1,000 feet of the real property that compromises a [public or 

private elementary school] [middle school] [secondary school] during 

school hours [or during the time of a sanctioned school activity].

Self-defense.

If you find that the defendant exhibited the [weapon] [firearm] [sword] 

[sword cane] [electric weapon or device] [destructive device] in necessary selfdefense, you must find the defendant not guilty. Read instructions 3.6(f) and/or 

3.6(g) as applicable. 

Definitions. Give as applicable.

 § 790.001(13) and § 790.115(1), Fla. Stats.

“Weapon” means any dirk, knife, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, 

tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, razor blade, box cutter, common 

pocketknife, box cutter, or a deadly weapon, except a plastic knife or bluntbladed table knife.

R.R. v. State, 826 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Cook v. Crosby, 914 So. 

2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

A “deadly weapon” is any instrument which will likely cause death or 

great bodily harm when used in the ordinary and usual manner contemplated 

by its design and construction. An object can be a deadly weapon if its sole 

modern use is to cause great bodily harm. An object not designed for use as a 

weapon may nonetheless be a deadly weapon if its use, intended use, or 

threatened use by the defendant was in a manner likely to inflict death or 

great bodily harm. 

§ 790.001(6), Fla. Stat.

“Firearm” means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is 

designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of 

an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any firearm muffler 

or firearm silencer; any destructive device; any machine gun. [The term 

“firearm” does not include an antique firearm unless the antique firearm is 

used in the commission of a crime.] The definition of “antique firearm is in Fla. 

Stat. § 790.001(1).

§ 790.001(14), Fla. Stat.

“Electric weapon or device” means any device which, through the 

application or use of electrical current, is designed, redesigned, used, or 

intended to be used for offensive or defensive purposes, the destruction of life, 

or the infliction of injury.
- 12 -

See § 790.001(4), Fla. Stat. for the definition of “destructive device.”

Lesser Included Offenses

IMPROPER EXHIBITION OF A [WEAPON] [FIREARM] AT 

SCHOOL – 790.115(1)

CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO.

Improper Exhibition of 

a Weapon or Firearm 

(except if the weapon 

is a closed common 

pocketknife)

790.10 10.5

Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1

Assault 784.011 8.1

Comments

 The statute has an exception if the exhibition of the weapon or firearm was 

authorized and in support of school-sanctioned activities. See § 790.115(1), Fla. 

Stat.

This crime does not apply if the exhibition of the weapon or firearm was on 

private real property, within 1,000 feet of a school, by the owner of the property or 

by a person who had been authorized, licensed, or invited by the owner to be on 

the property. See § 790.115(1), Fla. Stat.

This crime does not apply if the defendant was a law enforcement officer as 

defined in § 943.10(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), or (14), Fla. Stat. See 

§ 790.115(3), Fla. Stat.

This instruction was adopted in 2014.

11.14 FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Initially Register, Report, or Provide Registration Items)

§ 943.0435(2)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Offender to 

Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 

three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
- 13 -

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual offender.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual offender status an element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 

or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

Give 3a, 3b, 3c, or 3d as applicable.

3. (Defendant)

a. knowingly failed to register in person at an office of the 

sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours after 

establishing permanent, temporary, or transient residence 

within this state.

b. knowingly failed to report in person at an office of the 

sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours after 

being released from the [custody, control, or supervision of 

the Florida Department of Corrections] [custody of a 

private correctional facility].

c. knowingly failed to register in person at an office of the 

sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours after 

having been convicted by a court in that county of an 

offense requiring registration.
- 14 -

d. knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name 

of county) County with [his] [her] [(name the single 

unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] 

[any one or more of the following items: [his] [her] (name 

the unprovided registration items charged, as worded in the 

statute).]

Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a physical 

residential address.

The defendant shall provide a physical residential address. A post office 

box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply but was 

misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by the office of the 

sheriff. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 

prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 

should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 

appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 

[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
- 15 -

find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 

[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 

find (defendant) guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have been proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the 

issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or otherwise 

prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 

should find [him] [her] not guilty.

 

Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and2013 [113 So. 3d 754], and 2014.

11.14(a) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEXUAL OFFENDER BY A 

SEXUAL OFFENDER TO COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION 

REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Comply with Registration of a Residence, Motor Vehicle, Trailer, 

Mobile Home, Manufactured Home, Vessel, or Houseboat)

§ 943.0435(2)(b)1, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Offender by a 

Sexual Offender to Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must 

prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual offender.
- 16 -

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 

or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

Give 3a or 3b as applicable.

3. (Defendant)

a. uses as [his] [her] place of residence a [motor vehicle] 

[trailer] [mobile home] [manufactured home];

and 

knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name 

of county) County with [the (name the single unprovided 

registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or 

more of the following items: (name the unprovided 

registration items charged, as worded in the statute)] of the 

[motor vehicle] [trailer] [mobile home] [manufactured 

home] where [he] [she] resides.

b. uses as [his] [her] place of residence a [vessel] [live-aboard 

vessel] [houseboat];

and 

knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name 

of county) County with [the (name the single unprovided 

registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or 

more of the following items: (name the unprovided 

registration items charged, as worded in the statute] of the 
- 17 -

[vessel] [live-aboard vessel] [houseboat] where [he] [she] 

resides.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the office of the sheriff. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 

prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 

should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 

appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 

[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 

[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 

find (defendant) guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 
- 18 -

on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.

Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014.

11.14(b) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEXUAL OFFENDER BY A 

SEXUAL OFFENDER TO COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION 

REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Comply with Registration of Employment or 

Enrollment at an Institution of Higher Learning)

§ 943.0435(2)(b)2, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply with 

Registration Requirements as a Sexual Offender, the State must prove the 

following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual offender.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 
- 19 -

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 

or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 

Give 3a or 3b as applicable.

3. (Defendant)

a. [is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at 

an institution of higher education in this state, and

knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name 

of county) County with [(the name the single unprovided 

registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or 

more the following items: (name the unprovided registration 

items charged, as worded in the statute).] 

b. [is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at 

an institution of higher education in this state. 

undertook a change in [his] [her] enrollment or employment 

status, and

knowingly failed to report this change in person at an office 

of the sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours 

after the change.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the office of the sheriff. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from complying with registration requirements, and the case law is 

silent as to (1) which party bears the burden of persuasion of the affirmative 

defense and (2) the standard for the burden of persuasion. Under the common law, 
- 20 -

defendants had both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion on an 

affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise

prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 

should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 

appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 

[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 

[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 

on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.

Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014.
- 21 -

11.14(c) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.

(Failure to Report to Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles)

§ 943.0435(3), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply with 

Registration Requirements as a Sexual Offender, the State must prove the 

following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual offender.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 

or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

Give 3a or 3b as applicable.

3. (Defendant)

a. having registered as a sexual offender with an office of the 

sheriff of (name of county) County, 

knowingly failed to report in person to a driver’s license 

office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor 

Vehicles within 48 hours after registering to present proof

of this registration, and
- 22 -

knowingly failed to [secure a Florida driver’s license] 

[renew [his] [her] Florida driver’s license] [secure a Florida 

identification card].

b. reported in person to a driver’s license office of the 

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and 

[secured a Florida driver’s license] [renewed [his] [her] 

Florida driver’s license] [secured a Florida identification 

card], but in doing so,

Give one or both of the following as applicable to the charge.

i. failed to report to that office that [he] [she] was a 

sexual offender.

ii. failed to provide that office with [(name the single 

unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the 

statute)] [any one or more of the following items: 

(name the unprovided registration items charged, as 

worded in the statute)].

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from complying, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.
- 23 -

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 

misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying 

with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. If 

the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the 

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles misinformed [him] [her] 

or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] 

[her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles did not misinform 

(defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying with the 

registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the 

elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the 

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles misinformed (defendant) 

or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 

Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014.
- 24 -

11.14(d) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Report Change of Name or Address within the State or 

Jurisdiction) 

§ 943.0435(4), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Offender to 

Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 

three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual offender.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 

or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

Give 3a or 3b, or 3c or 3d as applicable.

3. (Defendant)

a. knowingly failed to report in person to a driver’s license 

office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor 

Vehicles, 

Give i, ii, or iii as applicable.

i. when [his] [her] [driver’s license] [identification card] 

was subject to renewal. 
- 25 -

ii. within 48 hours after any change in [his] [her] 

permanent, temporary, or transient residence.

iii. within 48 hours after any change in [his] [her] name 

by reason of [marriage] [(specify other legal process)].

b. knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the 

sheriff of (name of county) County, within 48 hours of 

vacating [his] [her] permanent residence and failing to 

[establish] [maintain] another [permanent] [temporary] 

[transient] residence. 

c. knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the 

sheriff of (name of county) County that [he] [she] remained 

at [his] [her] permanent residence, within 48 hours after 

[he] [she] reported to the sheriff [his] [her] intent to vacate 

[his] [her] permanent residence.

d. reported to 

Give i or ii as applicable.

i. an office of the sheriff of (name of county) County 

ii. a driver’s license office of the Department of Highway 

Safety and Motor Vehicles

and

Give iii or iv as applicable.

iii. knowingly failed to provide that office with (name the 

single unprovided registration item charged, as worded in 

the statute).

iv. knowingly failed to provide that office with any one or 

more of the following items: (name the unprovided 

registration items charged, as worded in the statute).

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
- 26 -

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles]. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and 

Motor Vehicles] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] 

from complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] 

[her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the[office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and 

Motor Vehicles] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] 

from complying, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the 

charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

[office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] did 

not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from 

complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] 

guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of 

whether the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and Motor 

Vehicles] misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from 
- 27 -

complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not 

guilty. 

Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014.

11.14(e) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Report Change of Residence to Another State or Jurisdiction)

§ 943.0435(7), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Report Change of Address as by a 

Sexual Offender to Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must 

prove the following [four] [five] elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant) 

a. is a sexual offender. 

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 

or “convicted.”
- 28 -

2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 

or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

3. (Defendant) intended to leave this State to establish residence in 

another state or jurisdiction on (date).

Give element 4 or 5, or both, as applicable.

4. (Defendant) knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the 

sheriff in the county of [his] [her] current residence within 48 

hours before the date on which [he] [she] intended to leave this 

state to establish residence in another state or jurisdiction.

5. (Defendant) knowingly failed to provide the address, municipality, 

county, and state of [his] [her] intended address, when [he] [she] 

reported to the sheriff’s office of the county of [his] [her] current 

residence [his] [her] intention to establish residence in another 

state or jurisdiction.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the office of the sheriff. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
- 29 -

prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 

should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 

appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 

[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 

[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 

on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 

Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014.

11.14(f) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Report Intent to Remain within the State or Jurisdiction) 

§ 943.0435(8), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Offender to 

Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 

five elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)
- 30 -

a. is a sexual offender.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 

or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

3. (Defendant) indicated to an office of the sheriff of (name of county)

County [his] [her] intent to leave this state on (date of intended 

departure) and establish a permanent, temporary, or transient 

residence in another state or jurisdiction.

4. (Defendant) later decided to remain in this state. 

5. Within 48 hours after the date of [his] [her] originally intended 

departure from this state, (defendant) knowingly failed to report to 

an office of the sheriff of (name of county) County that [he] [she] 

instead decided to remain in this state.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the office of the sheriff. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
- 31 -

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 

prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 

should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 

appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 

[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 

[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 

on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 

Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014.
- 32 -

11.14(g) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Report Twice a Year/Failure to Report Quarterly) 

§ 943.0435(14)(a) or (b), Fla. Stat.

Give this statement if the charge is failure to report twice a year during the 

sexual offender’s birthday month and six months later pursuant to 

§ 943.0435(14)(a), or, for certain specified violators, failure to report during the 

sexual offender’s birthday month and every third month thereafter pursuant to 

§ 943.0435(14)(b).

To prove the crime of Failure to Report [Twice a Year][Quarterly] as

by a Sexual Offender to Comply with Registration Requirements, the State 

must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual offender.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 

or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

Give 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, or 3e as applicable.

3. (Defendant)

a. knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during 

[his] [her] birthday month in (year) to an office of the sheriff 
- 33 -

in the county in which [he] [she] resides or is otherwise 

located.

b. knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during 

the sixth month following [his] [her] (year) birthday month 

to an office of the sheriff in the county in which [he] [she] 

resides or is otherwise located.

c. knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during 

every third month following [his] [her] (year) birthday 

month to an office of the sheriff in the county in which [he] 

[she] resides or is otherwise located.

d. knowingly failed to respond to the address verification 

correspondence from the Florida Department of Law 

Enforcement within three weeks from the date of the 

correspondence.

e. reported to an office of the sheriff of (name of county) to 

reregister, 

and

Give i or ii as applicable.

i. knowingly failed to provide that office with (name the 

single unprovided registration item charged, as worded in 

the statute).

ii. knowingly failed to provide that office with any one or 

more of the following items: (name the unprovided 

registration items charged, as worded in the statute).

Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a

physical residential address.

The defendant shall provide a physical residential address. 

A post office box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical 

residential address.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
- 34 -

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the office of the sheriff. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff] [Florida Department of Law 

Enforcement] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] 

from complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] 

[her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff] [Florida Department of Law 

Enforcement] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] 

from complying, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the 

charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

[office of the sheriff] [Florida Department of Law Enforcement] did not 

misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from 

complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] 

guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of 

whether the [office of the sheriff] [Florida Department of Law Enforcement] 

misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, 

with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 
- 35 -

Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090],and 2013 [113 So. 3d 754], and 2014.

11.15 FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEXUAL PREDATOR

(Initially Register – In Custody, Control or under the Supervision of the 

Department of Corrections)

§ 775.21(6)(b), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator, the State 

must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual predator. 

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) is [in the custody or control of the Department of 

Corrections] [under the supervision of the Department of 

Corrections] [in the custody of a private correctional 
- 36 -

facility][under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, 

but not incarcerated].

3. (Defendant) [knowingly failed to register with the Department of 

Corrections as a sexual predator][knowingly failed to register 

with the Department of Corrections within 3 days of having been 

classified as a sexual predator]. 

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator 

that (defendant) attempted to register as required by law but was misinformed 

or otherwise prevented from timely registering by the Department of 

Corrections. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the Department of Corrections misinformed [him] [her] or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] 

not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the Department of Corrections misinformed [him] [her] or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] 

guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 
- 37 -

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

Department of Corrections did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise 

prevent [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all 

of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the 

Department of Corrections misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented 

[him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 

Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses 

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and amended in 2014.

11.15(a) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEXUAL PREDATOR

(Initially Register – Not in Custody, Control or under Supervision of the 

Department of Corrections or a Private Correctional Facility)

§ 775.21(6)(e), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator, the State 

must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual predator. 

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 
- 38 -

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 

transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 

3. (Defendant) was not in the custody or control of or under the 

supervision of the Department of Corrections and was not in the 

custody of a private correctional facility.

Give 4a or 4b or 4a and 4b, as appropriate.

4(a). (Defendant) knowingly failed to register in person with an office

 of the sheriff in the county where [he] [she] [established] 

[maintained] residence within 48 hours after [he] [she] established 

permanent, temporary, or transient residence in this state. 

4(b). (Defendant) knowingly failed to register in person with an office 

of the sheriff in the county where [he] [she] was designated a sexual 

predator within 48 hours after having been so designated by the 

court.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator 

that (defendant) attempted to register as required by law but was misinformed 

or otherwise prevented from timely registering by the office of the sheriff. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.
- 39 -

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 

prevented [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 

If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the 

office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him]

[her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of 

the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 

[him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the 

elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the office of 

the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from 

registering, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 

Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses 

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014.
- 40 -

11.15(b) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS (Failure to Comply 

with Registration RequirementsProvide Required Information)

§ 775.21(6)(a)1, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 

Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 

three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual predator.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 

transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

3. (Defendant) knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of 

(name of county) County with [his] [her] [(name the single 

unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any 

one or more of the following items: [his] [her] (name the 

unprovided registration items charged, as worded in the statute)].

Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a physical 

residential address.

The defendant shall provide a physical residential address. A post office 

box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address.
- 41 -

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the office of the sheriff. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 

prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 

should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 

appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 

[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 

[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 

on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 
- 42 -

Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses 

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 2d 1090], and 2013 [113 So. 3d 754], and 2014.

11.15(c) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Comply with Registration of a Residence, Motor Vehicle, Trailer, 

Mobile Home, or Manufactured Home)

§775.21(6)(a)1.a., Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 

Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 

three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual predator.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 

transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
- 43 -

Give 3a or 3b as applicable.

3. (Defendant) 

a. used as [his] [her] place of residence a [motor vehicle] 

[trailer] [mobile home] [manufactured home];

and 

knowingly failed to provide [an office of the sheriff of (name 

of county) County] [the Florida Department of Law 

Enforcement] with [the (name the single unprovided 

registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or 

more of the following items: (name the unprovided 

registration items charged, as worded in the statute)]of the 

[motor vehicle] [trailer] [mobile home] [manufactured 

home] where [he] [she] resides.

b. used as [his] [her] place of residence a [vessel] [live-aboard 

vessel] [houseboat];

and 

knowingly failed to provide [an office of the sheriff of (name 

of the county) County] [the Florida Department of Law 

Enforcement] with [the (name the single unprovided 

registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or 

more of the following items: (name the unprovided 

registration items charged, as worded in the statute)] of the 

[vessel] [live-aboard vessel] [houseboat] where [he] [she] 

resides.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the office of the sheriff. 
- 44 -

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 

prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 

should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 

appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 

[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 

[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 

on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 

Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
- 45 -

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and 2014.

11.15(d) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Comply with Registration of Enrollment or 

Employment in Institutions of Higher Education)

§ 775.21(6)(a)1.b., Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 

Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 

three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual predator.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the Court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 

or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

Give 3a, 3b, or 3c as applicable.

3. (Defendant) 

a. [is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a 

vocation at an institution of higher education in this 

state, and 
- 46 -

knowingly failed to provide the office of the sheriff of (name 

of county) County with the [(name the single unprovided 

registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or 

more of the following items: (name the unprovided 

registration items charged, as worded in the statute)].

b. [is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at 

an institution of higher education in this state; 

undertook a change in [his] [her] enrollment or employment 

status, and

knowingly failed to report this change in person at an office 

of the sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours 

after the change.

c. [is] [was] in the custody of or under the supervision of the 

Department of Corrections; 

[is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at 

an institution of higher education in this state; 

undertook a change in [his] [her] enrollment or employment 

status, and

knowingly failed to report this change to the Department of 

Corrections within 48 hours after the change.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Corrections]. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
- 47 -

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff][Department of Corrections]

misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying 

with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. If 

the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the 

[office of the sheriff] [Department of Corrections] misinformed [him] [her] or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] [her] 

guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

[office of the sheriff] [Department of Corrections]did not misinform 

(defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying with the 

registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the 

elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the office of 

the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from 

complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not 

guilty.

Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses 

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
- 48 -

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and 2014.

11.15(e) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Report to Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles)

§ 775.21(6)(f), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure Failure to Register as by a Sexual 

Predator to Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the 

following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual predator.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a [permanent] [temporary] 

[transient] residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

Give 3a or 3b as applicable.

3. (Defendant) 

a. was not incarcerated;
- 49 -

[he] [she] resided in the community and was [under the 

supervision] [not under the supervision] of the Department 

of Corrections;

[he] [she] registered as a sexual predator with an office of 

the sheriff of (name of county) County; and

knowingly failed to report in person at a driver’s license 

office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor 

Vehicles within 48 hours after registering to present proof 

of this registration.

b. reported in person to a driver’s license office of the 

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 

and either

knowingly failed to [secure a Florida driver’s license] 

[renew a Florida driver’s license] [secure an 

identification card] or

secured a Florida driver’s license] [renewed [his] [her] 

Florida driver’s license] [secured a Florida identification 

card], but in doing so,

Give one or both of the following as applicable to the charge.

i. failed to report to that office that [he] [she] was a

sexual predator.

ii. failed to provide that office with [(name the single 

unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the 

statute)] [any one or more of the following items:

(name the unprovided registration items charged, as 

worded in the statute)].

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply withn 

the requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from 

complying by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. 
- 50 -

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 

misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying 

with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. If 

the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the 

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles misinformed [him] [her] 

or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] 

[her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles did not misinform 

(defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying with the 

registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the 

elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the 

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles misinformed (defendant) 

or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.

Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
- 51 -

Lesser Included Offenses 

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and 2014.

11.15(f) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Provide Other Necessary Information Requested by Department of 

Law Enforcement)

§ 775.21(6)(a)2, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 

Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 

three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual predator.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 

transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

3. (Defendant) knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of 

(name of county) County with [his] [her] [(name the single 
- 52 -

unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any 

one or more of the following items determined necessary by the 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement: [his] [her] (name the 

unprovided registration items charged, as worded in the statute)].

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the office of the sheriff. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 

prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 

should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 

appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 

[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 

[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 
- 53 -

find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 

on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.

Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses 

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and 2014.

11.15(g) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Report Change of Name or Address within the State or 

Jurisdiction)

§ 775.21(6)(g), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 

Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 

three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual predator.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 
- 54 -

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a [permanent] [temporary] 

[transient] residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

Give 3a, 3b, or 3c as applicable.

3. (Defendant)

a. knowingly failed to report in person to a driver’s license 

office [when [his] [her] driver’s license or identification 

card was subject to renewal] [within 48 hours after any 

change in [his] [her] permanent, temporary, or transient 

residence] [within 48 hours after any change in [his] [her] 

name by reason of [marriage] [(specify other legal process)]].

b. knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the 

sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours of 

vacating [his] [her] permanent, temporary, or transient 

residence and failing to establish or maintain another 

permanent, temporary, or transient residence. 

c. knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the 

sheriff of (name of county) County that [he] [she] did not 

vacate [his] [her] permanent, temporary, or transient 

residence within 48 hours after (defendant) reported to that 

agency [his] [her] intent to vacate [his] [her] permanent, 

temporary, or transient residence. 

d. reported to 

Give i or ii as applicable.

i. an office of the sheriff of (name of county)

ii. a driver’s license office of the Department of Highway 

Safety and Motor Vehicles

and

Give iii or iv as applicable.
- 55 -

iii. knowingly failed to provide that office with (name the 

single unprovided registration item charged, as worded in 

the statute).

iv. knowingly failed to provide that office with any one or 

more of the following items: (name the unprovided 

registration items charged, as worded in the statute).

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles]. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff][Department of Highway Safety and 

Motor Vehicles] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] 

from complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] 

[her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff][Department of Highway Safety and 

Motor Vehicles] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] 

from complying, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the 

charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 
- 56 -

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

[office of the sheriff][Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] did 

not misinform (defendant) or otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying 

with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of 

the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the [office of 

the sheriff][Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] misinformed 

(defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the 

registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.

Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses 

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and 2014.

11.15(h) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Respond To Address Verification Correspondence)

§ 775.21(10)(a), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 

Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 

three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual predator.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
- 57 -

sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 

or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 

transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

3. (Defendant) knowingly failed to respond to address verification 

correspondence from the Florida Department of Law 

Enforcement within three weeks from the date of the 

correspondence.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement misinformed 
- 58 -

[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the 

registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the 

defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement misinformed [him] [her] or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] [her] 

guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement did not misinform (defendant) or did 

not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, as worded in the statute)], you should find [him] [her] guilty, if 

all of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement misinformed (defendant) or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] [her] 

not guilty.

Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses 

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d1090], and 2014.

11.15(i) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Report Intent to Move to Another State or Jurisdiction)

§ 775.21(6)(i), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 

Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 

three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
- 59 -

1. (Defendant) 

a. is a sexual predator. 

b. has agreed or stipulated that he has been convicted as a 

sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the sexual 

predator status element as proven by agreement of the 

parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not also give the definition of “sexual 

predator” or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 

transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

Give 3a or 3b as applicable.

3. (Defendant)

a. intended to leave this State to establish a permanent, 

temporary, or transient residence in another state or 

jurisdiction on (date);

and

knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the 

sheriff in the county of [his] [her] current residence within 

48 hours before the date on which [he] [she] intended to 

leave this state to establish residence in another state or 

jurisdiction.

b. (Defendant)

reported to an office of the sheriff of the county of [his] 

[her] current residence [his] [her] intention to establish 

residence in another state or jurisdiction; 

and
- 60 -

knowingly failed to provide [[his] [her] (name the single 

unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] 

[any one or more of the following items: [his] [her] (name 

the unprovided registration items charged, as worded in the 

statute).]

Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a physical 

residential address.

The defendant shall provide a physical residential address. A post office 

box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 

with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 

requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 

the office of the sheriff. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 

prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 

should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 

appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 

[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should

find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 
- 61 -

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 

[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 

on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 

 

Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and2013 [113 So. 3d 754], and 2014.

11.15(j) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR 

TO COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Report Intent to Remain within the State or Jurisdiction)

§ 775.21(6)(j), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 

Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 

five elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual predator.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
- 62 -

sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not also give the definition of “sexual 

predator” or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 

transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.

3. (Defendant) indicated to an office of the sheriff of (name of county)

County [his] [her] intent to leave this state on (date of intended 

departure) and establish a permanent, temporary, or transient 

residence in another state or jurisdiction.

4. (Defendant) later decided to remain in this state. 

5. Within 48 hours after the date of [his] [her] originally intended 

departure from this state, (defendant) knowingly failed to report to 

an office of the sheriff of (name of county) County that [he] [she] 

instead decided to remain in this state.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure to Comply with Registration 

Requirements as a Sexual Predator that (defendant) attempted to comply with 

the requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from 

complying by the office of the sheriff. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
- 63 -

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 

prevented [him [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 

should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 

appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 

[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 

[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 

on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 

Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses 

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and 2014.
- 64 -

11.15(k) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 

COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

(Failure to Register Quarterly)

§ 775.21(8)(a), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 

Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 

three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant)

a. is a sexual predator.

b. has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 

as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 

sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 

the parties.

If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 

conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 719 

So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If 

there is a stipulation, the court should not also give the definition of “sexual 

predator” or “convicted.”

2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 

or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 

Give 3a, 3b, or 3c as applicable.

3. (Defendant) 

a. knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during 

[his] [her] birthday month in (year) to an office of the sheriff 

in the county in which [he] [she] resides or is otherwise 

located.

b. knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during 

every third month following [his] [her] (year) birthday 

month to an office of the sheriff in the county in which [he] 

[she] resides or is otherwise located.
- 65 -

c. knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name 

of county) County with a change to [his] [her] [(name the 

single unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the 

statute)] [any one or more of the following items: [his] [her] 

(name the unprovided registration items charged, as worded in 

the statute)].

Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a physical 

residential address.

The defendant shall provide a physical residential address. A post office 

box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address.

Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 

State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

It is a defense to the crime of Failure to Comply with Registration 

Requirements as a Sexual Predator that (defendant) attempted to comply with 

the requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from 

complying by the office of the sheriff. 

There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 

the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 

burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 

production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 

defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 

persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 

absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. 

See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.

If burden of persuasion is on the defendant: 

If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 

persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 

prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 

should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 

appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 

[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
- 66 -

find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 

the beyond a reasonable standard: 

If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 

[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 

find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 

on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 

otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 

requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 

Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.

Lesser Included Offenses 

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 

in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and2013 [113 So. 3d 754], and 2014.

11.19 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BETWEEN DETENTION FACILITY 

EMPLOYEES AND INMATES

§ 951.221(1), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Sexual Misconduct Between Detention Facility

Employees and Inmates, the State must prove the following three elements 

beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) was an employee of a [county or municipal detention 

facility] [private detention facility under contract with a county 

commission].

2. While an employee, (defendant) engaged in sexual misconduct with 

(inmate).
- 67 -

3. At the time, (inmate) was an [inmate] [offender supervised by the 

facility].

§ 951.221(1), Fla. Stat. Consent is not a defense.

The consent of an [inmate] [offender] to any act of sexual misconduct is 

not a defense to the crime of Sexual Misconduct.

Definitions.

§ 951.221(1), Fla. Stat. and § 944.35(3)(b)1, Fla. Stat.

“Sexual Misconduct” means the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or 

union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of 

another by any other object, but does not include an act done for a bona fide 

medical purpose or an internal search conducted in the lawful performance of 

the employee’s duty.

 Give as applicable.

“Union” means contact.

§ 951.23(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

“County Detention Facility” means a county jail, a county stockade, a 

county work camp, a county residential probation center, and any other place 

except a municipal detention facility used by a county or county officer for the

detention of persons charged with or convicted of either felony or 

misdemeanor.

§ 951.23(1)(b), Fla. Stat.

“County Residential Probation Center” means a county-operated 

facility housing offenders serving misdemeanor sentences or first-time felony 

sentences.

§ 951.23(1)(d), Fla. Stat.

“Municipal Detention Facility” means a city jail, a city stockade, a city 

prison camp, and any other place except a county detention facility used by a 

municipality or municipal officer for the detention of persons charged with or 

convicted of a violation of municipal laws or ordinances.
- 68 -

Lesser Included Offenses

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BETWEEN DETENTION FACILITY 

EMPLOYEES AND INMATES — 951.221(1)

None

Battery 784.03 8.3

Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1

Assault 784.011 8.1

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2014.

20.20 MORTGAGE FRAUD

§ 817.545(2) & (5), Fla. Stat.

In order to prove the crime of Mortgage Fraud, the State must prove 

the following element beyond a reasonable doubt:

(Defendant), with intent to defraud, knowingly:

Give a, b, c, d, and/or e as applicable.

a. made any material [misstatement] [misrepresentation] [omission] 

during the mortgage lending process with the intent that the 

[misstatement] [misrepresentation] [omission] would be relied on 

by [a mortgage lender] [a borrower] [or] [any other person or 

entity] involved in the mortgage lending process]; 

b. used or facilitated the use of any material [misstatement] 

[misrepresentation] [omission] during the mortgage lending 

process with the intent that the material [misstatement] 

[misrepresentation] [omission] would be relied on by [a mortgage 

lender][a borrower] or [any other person or entity] involved in the 

mortgage lending process;

c. received any [proceeds] [or other funds] in connection with the 

mortgage lending process that [he] [she] knew resulted from the 

making of any material [misstatement] [misrepresentation] 

[omission] during the mortgage lending process that was made 

with the intent that the [misstatement] [misrepresentation] 
- 69 -

[omission] would be relied on by [a mortgage lender] [a borrower] 

[or] [any other person or entity] involved in the mortgage lending 

process];

d. received any [proceeds] [or other funds] in connection with the 

mortgage lending process that [he] [she] knew resulted from the 

use of any material [misstatement] [misrepresentation] [omission] 

during the mortgage lending process that was made with the 

intent that the material [misstatement] [misrepresentation] 

[omission] would be relied on by [a mortgage lender] [a borrower]

or [any other person or entity] involved in the mortgage lending 

process];

e. filed or caused to be filed with the clerk of the circuit court for 

any Florida county a document involved in the mortgage lending 

process which contained a material [misstatement]

[misrepresentation] [or] [omission].

Give if applicable. § 817.545(5)(b), Fla. Stat.

If you find that the defendant guilty of Mortgage Fraud, you must also 

determine if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether the loan 

value stated on documents used in the mortgage lending process exceeded 

$100,000.

§ 817.545(2)(a) & (b), Fla. Stat.

Omissions on a loan application regarding employment, income, or 

assets for a loan which does not require this information are not considered 

material omissions for purposes of Mortgage Fraud.

§ 817.545(1), Fla. Stat.

Documents involved in the mortgage lending process include, but are 

not limited to, mortgages, deeds, surveys, inspection reports, uniform 

residential loan applications, or other loan applications; appraisal reports; 

HUD-1 settlement statements; supporting personal documentation for loan 

applications such as W-2 forms, verifications of income and employment, 

credit reports, bank statements, tax returns, and payroll stubs; and any 

required disclosures.

§ 817.545(1), Fla. Stat.

“Mortgage lending process” means the process through which a person 

seeks or obtains a residential mortgage loan, including, but not limited to, the 
- 70 -

solicitation, application or origination, negotiation of terms, third-party

provider services, underwriting, signing and closing, and funding of the loan.

“Knowingly” means that the defendant is aware of the act and is not 

acting through ignorance, mistake or accident.

“Material” means a fact a reasonable person would use to decide 

whether to do or not to do something. A fact is material if it has the capacity 

or natural tendency to influence a person’s decision. Any misrepresentation 

or concealment must be reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary 

prudence and comprehension.

Lesser Included Offenses

MORTGAGE FRAUD — 817.545

CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO.

None

Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1

Comment

The crime of Mortgage Fraud may not be predicated solely upon information 

lawfully disclosed under federal disclosure laws, regulations, or interpretations 

related to the mortgage lending process. See § 817.545(3), Fla. Stat.

This instruction was adopted in 2014. 

22.15 [MANUFACTUING] [OWNING] [STORING] [KEEPING]

[POSSESSION OF] [PERMITTING THE OPERATION OF] [SELLING] 

[LEASING] [TRANSPORTING]OF A SLOT MACHINE

§ 849.15(1)(a) and (b), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the 

following element beyond a reasonable doubt:

 Give as applicable. 

 (Defendant)
- 71 -

a. [manufactured] [owned] [stored] [kept] [possessed]

[sold] [leased] [let on shares] [lent] [gave away] [transported] 

[exposed for sale or lease] any slot machine or device [or any part 

of a slot machine or device].

b. offered to [sell] [rent] [lease] [let on shares] [lend] [give away] any 

slot machine or device [or any part of a slot machine or device].

c. permitted the operation of any slot machine or device [or any part 

of a slot machine or device].

d. permitted any slot machine or device [or any part of

 a slot machine or device] to be [placed] [maintained] [used] [kept]

 in a [room] [space] [building] owned, leased, or occupied by [him]

 [her] or under [his] [her] management or control. 

e. [or permitted to be made] an agreement with another, pursuant 

to which the user of any slot machine or device, as a result of any 

element of chance [or other outcome unpredictable to him or her]

may become entitled to receive [money] [credit] [allowance] [a 

thing of value] [an additional chance or right to use the slot 

machine or device] [any [check] [slug] [token] [memorandum] 

entitling the holder to receive [money] [credit] [allowance] [or] 

[thing of value]]. 

§ 849.16, Fla. Stat.

A “slot machine or device” is a machine or device or system or network 

of devices that is adapted for use in such a way that, upon activation, which 

may be achieved by, but is not limited to, as a result of the insertion of any 

piece of money, coin, account number, code, or other object or information, 

such device or system is directly or indirectly caused to operate or may be 

operated or other object, such machine or device is caused to operate or may 

be operated and if the user, whether by application of skill or by reason of any 

element of chance or of any other outcome of such operation unpredictable by 

him or her, the user, may: 

(a) receive or become entitled to receive any piece of money, credit, 

 allowance, or thing of value; or 
- 72 -

(b) receive or become entitled to receive any check, slug, token, or 

memorandum, whether of value or otherwise, which may be 

exchanged for any money, credit, allowance, or thing of value or 

which may be given in trade; or

(c) secure additional chances or rights to use such machine, 

apparatus, or device, even though the device or system may be 

available for free play, or, it may, in addition to any element of 

chance or unpredictable outcome of such operation, may also sell, 

deliver, or present some merchandise, indication of weight, 

entertainment, or other thing of value.

Give if applicable. §§ 849.16(1)(b), 551.102(8), Fla. Stats.

A “slot machine” includes, but is not limited to, devices regulated as slot 

machines under chapter 551 of Florida Statutes. Under chapter 551, a “slot 

machine” means any mechanical or electrical contrivance, terminal that may 

or may not be capable of downloading slot games from a central server 

system, machine, or other device that, upon insertion of a coin, bill, ticket, 

token, or similar object or upon payment of any consideration whatsoever, 

including the use of any electronic payment system except a credit card or 

debit card, is available to play or operate, the play or operation of which, 

whether by reason of skill or application of the element of chance or both, 

may deliver or entitle the person or persons playing or operating the 

contrivance, terminal, machine, or other device to receive cash, billets, tickets, 

tokens, or electronic credits to be exchanged for cash or to receive 

merchandise or anything of value whatsoever, whether the payoff is made 

automatically from the machine or manually. The term includes associated 

equipment necessary to conduct the operation of the contrivance, terminal, 

machine, or other device. Slot machines may use spinning reels, video 

displays, or both. [A slot machine is not a “coin-operated amusement 

machine” as defined in § 212.02(24), Fla. Stat. or an amusement game or 

machine as described in § 849.161, Fla. Stat.] Instruct on § 212.02(24), Fla. Stat.

or § 849.161, Fla. Stat. as applicable. 

Give if applicable. § 849.094(8)(a), Fla. Stat.

Compliance with the rules of the Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services is not a defense to a charge of Possession of a Slot Machine 

or Device. 

Give if applicable. § 849.16(3), Fla. Stat.
- 73 -

You are permitted to infer that a device, system, or network is a 

prohibited slot machine or device if it is used to display images of games of 

chance and is part of a scheme involving any payment or donation of money 

or its equivalent and awarding anything of value.

Lesser Included Offenses

[POSSESSION] [PERMITTING THE OPERATION] OF A SLOT

MACHINE — 849.15(1)(a) and (b)

CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO.

None

Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1

Comments

It is not necessary for the State to prove that the slot machine or device was 

used for gambling. See Eccles v. Stone, 183 So. 628 (Fla. 1938); Dept. of Business 

Regulation v. Rains, 477 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

It is a defense to Possession of a Slot Machine if the device is an antique slot 

machine and is not being used for gambling. An antique slot machine is one which 

was manufactured at least 20 years prior to the prosecution. See § 849.235, Fla. 

Stat.

This instruction was adopted in 2013 [122 So. 3d 302] and amended in 2014.