Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC12-1940

____________

IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES — 

INSTRUCTION 14.2.

[June 5, 2014]

PER CURIAM.

Previously in this case, the Court authorized on an interim basis, on its own 

motion, amended instruction 14.2 (Dealing in Stolen Property (Fencing)) of the 

Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases. See In re Standard Jury Instructions 

in Criminal Cases—Instruction 14.2, 121 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 2013).1 The 

amendments to this instruction were in response to this Court’s decision in 

Williams v. State, 121 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2013), holding that when the offenses of 

both theft and dealing in stolen property are submitted to the jury, the jury must be 

instructed in accordance with section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2008). Id. at 530-

31. Because the Court amended the instruction on its own motion, the Court 

allowed sixty days in which the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury 

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

 
Instructions in Criminal Cases (Committee) and other interested persons could file 

comments. In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Instruction 14.2, 

121 So. 3d at 521.

The Court received one comment and a response from the Committee. 

Having considered the comment and the Committee’s response, we further amend 

instruction 14.2 as proposed by the Committee but with one modification. We 

decline to include the Committee’s proposed language pertaining to when a person 

engages in more than one scheme or course of conduct, because the Court does not 

decide substantive issues in jury instruction cases, but rather allows the law to 

develop in actual cases and controversies.

Amended instruction 14.2, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, is 

hereby authorized for publication and use.2

 New language is indicated by 

underlining, and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type. In 

authorizing the publication and use of this instruction, we express no opinion on its

correctness and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses 

neither requesting additional or alternative instructions nor contesting the legal

2. The amendments as reflected in the appendix are to the Criminal Jury 

Instructions as they appear on the Court’s website at www.floridasupremecourt.org 

/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml. We recognize that there may be minor 

discrepancies between the instructions as they appear on the website and the 

published versions of the instructions. Any discrepancies as to instructions 

authorized for publication and use after October 25, 2007, should be resolved by 

reference to the published opinion of this Court authorizing the instruction.

- 2 -

 
correctness of the instruction. We further caution all interested parties that any 

comments associated with the instruction 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 instruction as set forth in the appendix shall become effective 

immediately upon release of this opinion.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, 

and PERRY, JJ., concur. 

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

Original Proceeding – Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in 

Criminal Cases 

Honorable Joseph A. Bulone, Chair, Clearwater, Florida, and Honorable 

Jacqueline Hogan Scola, Past Chair, Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases 

Committee, Miami, Florida, and Bart Schneider, Senior Attorney, Office of State 

Court Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida, 

for Petitioner

- 3 -
APPENDIX

14.2 DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY (FENCING)

§ 812.019(1), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Dealing in Stolen Property (Fencing), the State 

must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) [trafficked in] [endeavored to traffic in] (property 

alleged).

2. (Defendant) knew or should have known that (property alleged) 

was stolen.

Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat.

Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless satisfactorily 

explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the 

property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.

Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat.

Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially 

below the fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an 

inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have 

known that the property had been stolen.

Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(4), Fla. Stat.

Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, 

out of the regular course of business or without the usual indicia of ownership 

other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an 

inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have 

known that it had been stolen.

Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(5), Fla. Stat.

Proof that a dealer who regularly deals in used property possesses 

stolen property, upon which a name and phone number of a person other than 

the offeror of the property are conspicuously displayed, gives rise to an 

inference that the dealer possessing the property knew or should have known 

that the property was stolen.

Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(6), Fla. Stat.

- 4 -
Proof that a person was in possession of a stolen motor vehicle and that 

the ignition mechanism of the motor vehicle had been bypassed or the steering 

wheel locking mechanism had been broken or bypassed, unless satisfactorily 

explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the stolen 

motor vehicle knew or should have known that the motor vehicle had been 

stolen.

Definitions.

§ 812.012(3), Fla. Stat.

“Property” means anything of value, and includes:

real property, including things growing on, affixed to and found 

in land;

tangible or intangible personal property, including rights, 

privileges, interests, and claims; and

services.

§§ 812.012(6), 812.028(3), Fla. Stat.

“Stolen property” means property that has been the subject of any 

criminally wrongful taking or if the property has not been stolen, that it was 

offered for sale to (defendant) as stolen property.

§ 812.012(7), Fla. Stat.

“Traffic” means:

to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise dispose of 

property; and 

to buy, receive, possess, obtain control of or use property with the 

intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise dispose of 

that property.

Give if both theft and dealing in stolen property are submitted to the jury:

You will receive separate verdict forms for theft and dealing in stolen 

property as the defendant was charged with both crimes.

- 5 -
If you find that the State has not proven theft and dealing in stolen 

property, then you are to find the defendant not guilty of both offenses.

If you find that the State has proven theft, but not dealing in stolen 

property, then you are to find the defendant guilty of theft and not guilty of 

dealing in stolen property.

If you find that the State has proven dealing in stolen property, but not 

theft, then you are to find the defendant guilty of dealing in stolen property 

and not guilty of theft.

If you find that the State has proven both theft and dealing in stolen 

property, you must then decide whether both offenses were in connection with 

one scheme or course of conduct. “One scheme or course of conduct” means 

that there was no clearly disjunctive interval of time or set of circumstances 

which meaningfully disrupted the flow of the defendant’s conductmeaningful 

disruption of the defendant’s conduct by either an interval of time or a set of 

circumstances. 

If you find that both theft and dealing in stolen property were proven 

by the State, and the offenses were not in connection with one scheme or 

course of conduct, then you are to find the defendant guilty of both theft and 

dealing in stolen property. 

If you find that both theft and dealing in stolen property were proven 

by the State, and the offenses were in connection with one scheme or course of 

conduct, then the defendant must be convicted of either theft or dealing in 

stolen property. In making your decision, you must determine whether the 

defendant is more of a common thief or more of a trafficker. This 

determination rests on the defendant’s intended use of the stolen property. 

The defendant is a “common thief” if [he][she] had the intent to appropriate 

the property to [his] [her] own use or to the use of any person not entitled to 

the use of the property. The defendant is a “trafficker” if [he][she] had the 

intent to traffic in the stolen property. If you find the defendant more of a 

“common thief,” then you are to find the defendant guilty of theft only. If you 

find the defendant more of a “trafficker,” then you are to find the defendant 

guilty of dealing in stolen property only.

Lesser Included Offenses

- 6 -
DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY — TRAFFICKING — 812.019(1)

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

None Grand theft — third 

degree

812.014(2)(c) 14.1

Petit theft — first degree 812.014(2)(e) 14.1

Petit theft — second 

degree

812.014(3)(a) 14.1

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 

1205], 2007, by adding the inferences in § 812.022(2)-(6), Fla. Stat., and 2013

[121 So. 3d 520], and 2014.

- 7 -