Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC16-1183

____________

IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—

REPORT 2016-04.

[December 8, 2016]

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal

Cases (Committee) has submitted a report proposing amendments to seven existing 

standard criminal jury instructions. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. 

Const.

The Committee proposes amending existing instructions 3.3(a) (Aggravation 

of a Felony by Carrying a Firearm); 3.3(b) (Aggravation of a Felony by Carrying a 

Weapon Other Than a Firearm); 3.3(f) (Aggravation of a Crime by Selecting a 

Victim Based on Prejudice); 3.6(c) (Psychotropic Medication); 8.18 (Violation of 

an Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence); 8.19 (Violation of an 

Injunction for Protection Against [Repeat] [Sexual] [Dating] Violence); and 8.24 

(Violation of an Injunction for Protection Against [Stalking] [Cyberstalking]). 
- 2 -

Before filing its report with the Court, the Committee published its proposals 

for comments. The Committee received comments from the Florida Association of 

Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Florida Public Defender Association, and Gerry 

Rose. The Committee altered several of its proposals upon consideration of the 

comments. The Court did not publish the Committee’s amended proposals for 

comment.

Having considered the Committee’s report and the comments received by 

the Committee, we authorize for publication and use amended instructions 3.3(f), 

3.6(c), 8.18, 8.19, and 8.24 as proposed. We, however, decline to authorize

amended instructions 3.3(a) and 3.3(b) at this time. 

Accordingly, the instructions, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, are 

authorized for publication and use.1 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 

 

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.
- 3 -

caution all interested parties that any comments associated with the instructions 

reflect only the opinion of the Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the 

views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability. New language is 

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

The instructions as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when this opinion 

becomes final. 

It is so ordered.

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

and PERRY, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 

IF FILED, DETERMINED.

Original Proceeding – Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in 

Criminal Cases

Judge Frederic Rand Wallis, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury 

Instructions in Criminal Cases, Daytona Beach, Florida; and Barton Neil 

Schneider, Staff Liaison, Office of the State Courts Administrator, Tallahassee, 

Florida,

for Petitioner
- 4 -

Appendix

3.3(f) AGGRAVATION OF A CRIME BY SELECTING A VICTIM BASED 

ON PREJUDICE

§ 775.085, Fla. Stat. and § 775.0863, Fla. Stat.

If you find that (defendant) committed (crime charged or a lesser included 

crime) and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant)

1. perceived, knew, or had reasonable ground to perceive or know 

(victim’s) [race] [color] [ancestry] [ethnicity] [religion] [sexual 

orientation] [national origin] [homeless status] [mental or physical 

disability] [advanced age], and

2. intentionally selected (victim) because of that perception or 

knowledge,

then you should find the defendant(defendant) guilty of (crime charged or lesser 

included crime) aggravated by the intentional selection of the victim(victim)

based on prejudice.

If you find that the defendant(defendant) committed (crime charged or a 

lesser included crime) beyond a reasonable doubt, but you are not convinced 

beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] [she] did so by intentionally selecting the 

victim (victim) based on prejudice, then you should find the defendant[him] 

[her] guilty of only (crime charged or a lesser included crime).

Definitions. Give if applicable. 

§ 775.0863(1)(b), Fla. Stat.

“Mental or physical disability” means that the victim suffers from a 

condition of physical or mental incapacitation due to a developmental 

disability, organic brain damage, or mental illness, and has one or more 

physical or mental limitations that restrict the victim’sperson’s ability to 

perform the normal activities of daily living.

§ 775.085(1)(b)1, Fla. Stat.

“Advanced age” means that the victimperson is older than 65 years of 

age.
- 5 -

§ 775.085(1)(b)2, Fla. Stat.

“Homeless status” means the victimperson lacks a fixed, regular, and 

adequate nighttime residence; or has a primary nighttime residence that is 

either (1) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to 

provide temporary living accommodations or (2) a public or private place not 

designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for 

human beings.

Comments

Proof that the defendant intentionally selected the victim is required by State 

v. Stalder, 630 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1994).

This instruction was adopted in 1997 [697 So.2d 84] and amended in 2000 

[765 So. 2d 692], and 2007 [965 So. 2d 811], and 2011 [73 So. 3d 136], and 2016.

3.6(c) INSANITY — PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION

Give, If the defendant’s ability to proceed to trial is dependent on the use of 

pyschotropic medication, give if requested by defendantthe defense, at the 

beginning of the trial and in the charge to the jury. See Fla. R. Crim P. 3.215(c).

(Defendant) currently is being administered psychotropic medication 

under medical supervision for a mental or emotional condition.

Psychotropic medication is any drug or compound affecting the mind,

or behavior, intellectual functions, perception, moods, or emotion and 

includes anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, anti-manic, and anti-anxiety drugs.

You shall not allow the defendant’s present condition in court or any 

apparent side effect from the medication that you may have observed in court 

to affect your deliberations.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in June1994 [636 So. 2d 502] and amended in 

2016.
- 6 -

8.18 VIOLATION OF AN INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCEINJUNCTION

§ 741.31(4)(a), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Violation of an Injunction for Protection Against

Domestic ViolenceInjunction, the State must prove the following two elements 

beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. A temporary or final injunction for protection against domestic 

violence was issued by a court against (defendant) for the benefit 

of (victim).

2. (Defendant) willfully violated the injunction by (alleged violation of 

section 741.31(4)(a)).

Definition.

“Willfully” means knowingly, intentionally, and purposely.

If the allegation involves the defendant committing an act of domestic 

violence, define “domestic violence” from § 741.28(2), Fla. Stat.

Give if applicable if the jury finds the defendant guilty of Violation of 

Domestic Violence Injunction. § 741.31(4)(c), Fla. Stat.

Now that you have found the defendant guilty of Violation of Domestic 

Violence Injunction, you must further determine whether the State has 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was previously 

convicted two times or more of Violation of an Injunction against the same 

person.

“Conviction” means a determination of guilt which is the result of a plea 

or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo 

contendere is entered.

Lesser Included Offenses

VIOLATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INJUNCTION — 741.31

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

None

Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1
- 7 -

Comments

This instruction can be used for the Violation of a Domestic Violence 

Injunction based on prior convictions. For Felony Violation of a Domestic 

Violence Injunction based on prior convictions, it is error to inform the jury of 

prior Violation of Injunction convictions until the verdict on the underlying 

Violation of a Domestic Violence Injunction is rendered. Therefore, if the 

information or indictment contains an allegation of prior Violation of Injunction 

convictions, do not read that allegation and do not send the information or 

indictment into the jury room. If the defendant is found guilty of Violation of a 

Domestic Violence Injunction, the historical fact of prior convictions shall be 

determined separately by the jury in a bifurcated proceeding. See State v. 

Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000).

This instruction was adopted in 2007 [SC07-325, Corrected Opinion, August 

30, 2007965 So. 2d 811] and amended in 2016.

8.19 VIOLATION OF AN INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST 

[REPEAT]VIOLENCE[SEXUAL]VIOLENCE, OR [DATING]

VIOLENCEINJUNCTION

§ 784.047, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Violation of an Injunction for Protection Against 

[Repeat] [Sexual] [Dating] ViolenceInjunction, the State must prove the 

following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. An injunction for protection against [repeat] [sexual] [dating] 

violence was issued by a court against (defendant) for the benefit 

of (victim).

2. (Defendant) willfully violated the injunction by (alleged violation of 

section 784.047).

Definition.

“Willfully” means knowingly, intentionally, and purposely.

If the allegation involves the defendant committing an act of repeat, sexual, 

or dating violence against the victim, give the appropriate definitions of 

“violence,” “repeat violence,” and/or “dating violence” from § 784.046(1), Fla. 

Stat., and the elements of any appropriate crime(s) supported by the evidence.
- 8 -

Give if applicable if the jury finds the defendant guilty of Violation of a 

[Repeat][Sexual][Dating] Violence Injunction. § 784.047(2), Fla. Stat.

Now that you have found the defendant guilty of Violation of a [Repeat]

[Sexual] [Dating] Violence Injunction, you must further determine whether 

the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was 

previously convicted two times or more of Violation of an Injunction against 

the same person.

“Conviction” means a determination of guilt which is the result of a plea 

or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo 

contendere is entered.

Lesser Included Offenses

VIOLATION OF REPEAT VIOLENCE, SEXUAL VIOLENCE, OR 

DATING VIOLENCE INJUNCTION – 784.047

CATEGORY 

ONE

CATEGORY 

TWO

FLA. STAT INS. NO.

None

Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1

Comments

This instruction can be used for Violation of a [Repeat] [Sexual] [Dating] 

Violence Injunction based on prior convictions. For Felony Violation of a [Repeat] 

[Sexual] [Dating] Violence Injunction based on prior convictions, it is error to 

inform the jury of prior Violation of Injunction convictions until the verdict on the 

underlying Violation of a [Repeat] [Sexual] [Dating] Violence Injunction is 

rendered. Therefore, if the information or indictment contains an allegation of prior 

Violation of Injunction convictions, do not read that allegation and do not send the 

information or indictment into the jury room. If the defendant is found guilty of 

Violation of a [Repeat] [Sexual] [Dating] Violence Injunction, the historical fact of 

prior convictions shall be determined separately by the jury in a bifurcated 

proceeding. See State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000).

This instruction was adopted in 2007 [SC07-325, Corrected Opinion, August 

30, 2007965 So. 2d 811] and amended in 2016.
- 9 -

8.24 VIOLATION OF AN INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST 

[STALKING] [CYBERSTALKING]

§ 784.0487(4), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Violation of an Injunction for Protection Against 

[Stalking] [Cyberstalking], the State must prove the following two elements 

beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. An injunction for protection against [stalking] [cyberstalking] was 

issued by a court against (defendant) for the benefit of (victim).

2. (Defendant) willfully violated the injunction by:

Give as alleged.

a. going to, or being within 500 feet of, the 

petitioner’s(victim’s) residence, school, place of 

employment, or a specified place frequented regularly by 

the petitioner(victim) and any named family members or 

individuals closely associated with the petitioner(victim).

b. committing an act of stalking against the petitioner(victim).

c. committing any other violation of the injunction through an 

intentional unlawful threat, word, or act to do violence to 

the petitioner(victim).

d. telephoning, contacting, or otherwise communicating with 

the petitioner(victim), directly or indirectly, unless the 

injunction specifically allows indirect contact through a 

third party.

e. knowingly and intentionally coming within 100 feet of the 

petitioner’s(victim’s) motor vehicle, whether or not that 

vehicle is occupied.

f. destroying the petitioner’s(victim’s) personal property, 

including the petitioner’s(victim’s) motor vehicle.

g. refusing to surrender firearms or ammunition if ordered to 

do so by the court.
- 10 -

Definition.

Patterson v. State, 512 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

“Willfully” means knowingly, intentionally, and purposely.

If the allegation involves the defendant committing an act of stalking against 

victim, give the elements of stalking from Instruction 8.6.

Give if applicable if the jury finds the defendant guilty of Violation of 

Domestic Violence Injunction. § 784.0487(4)(b), Fla. Stat.

Now that you have found the defendant guilty of Violation of an 

Injunction for Protection Against [Stalking] [Cyberstalking], you must 

further determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt 

that the defendant was previously convicted two times or more of Violation of 

an Injunction against the same person.

“Conviction” means a determination of guilt which is the result of a plea 

or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo 

contendere is entered.

Lesser Included Offenses

VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST 

[STALKING] [CYBERSTALKING] – 784.0487(4)

CATEGORY 

ONE

CATEGORY 

TWO

FLA. STAT INS. NO.

None

Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1

Comments

This instruction can be used for Violation of an Injunction for Protection 

Against [Stalking] [Cyberstalking] based on prior convictions. For Felony 

Violation of an Injunction for Protection Against [Stalking] [Cyberstalking] based 

on prior convictions, it is error to inform the jury of prior Violation of Injunction 

convictions until the verdict on the underlying Violation of an Injunction for 

Protection Against [Stalking] [Cyberstalking] is rendered. Therefore, if the 

information or indictment contains an allegation of prior Violation of Injunction 

convictions, do not read that allegation and do not send the information or 

indictment into the jury room. If the defendant is found guilty of Violation of an 

Injunction for Protection Against [Stalking] [Cyberstalking], the historical fact of 
- 11 -

prior convictions shall be determined separately by the jury in a bifurcated 

proceeding. See State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000).

This instruction was adopted in 2013 [131 So. 3d 755] and amended in 2016.