FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2985

_____________________________

CHARLES K. DAWSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.

April 29, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Charles K. Dawson, challenges his judgment and 

sentence for failure of sexual predator to properly register 

residency after release from custody. He argues the trial court 

erred in denying his requests: (1) for a special jury instruction on 

the maintenance of video surveillance; and (2) to remove from the 

jury instructions references to “sexual predator.” We affirm the 

second issue without discussion based on our prior decision in 

Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). For the 

reasons that follow, we also affirm the first issue. 

At trial, Appellant contended that following his release from 

custody he entered the lobby of the sheriff’s office twice in an

attempt to properly register. A witness from the Bay County 
2

Sheriff’s Office indicated the registration lobby had video 

surveillance and would have been able to show if Appellant had 

been in the office as he claimed. However, the video was not 

required to be maintained. 

At trial, defense counsel proposed the following instruction:

Members of the jury, the parties have agreed to certain 

facts. You must accept these facts as true.

1. Charles Kevin Dawson has been convicted as a sexual 

predator.

2. Video surveillance of the Bay County Sheriff’s Office 

is only maintained for 30 days and any video that existed 

was not preserved in order to view in this case. 

The trial court declined to give this proposed instruction and 

instead gave the standard instruction on the defense to the crime 

of failure to register:

It is a defense to the crime of failure to register as a sexual 

predator, that Charles Dawson attempted to register as 

required by law, but was misinformed or otherwise 

prevented from timely registering by the office of the 

sheriff.

Generally, standard jury instructions are preferred over 

special instructions. See Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747, 755 

(Fla. 2001). But, a defendant has a right to a special instruction 

on the law applicable to his defense theory where trial evidence 

supports the theory. Id. In order to be entitled to a special jury 

instruction, a defendant must prove: “(1) the special instruction 

was supported by the evidence; (2) the standard instruction did not 

adequately cover the theory of defense; and (3) the special 

instruction was a correct statement of the law and not misleading 

or confusing.” Id. at 756. 

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 

proposed special instruction. See Kervin v. State, 195 So. 3d 1181, 

1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“We review the trial court’s decision to 

give or withhold a proposed jury instruction for an abuse of 
3

discretion.”). While Appellant’s proposed instruction was 

supported by the evidence, Appellant failed to establish the 

standard instruction did not adequately cover his defense. 

Appellant’s defense was that he attempted to, but was prevented 

from properly registering and that the video, destroyed by the 

sheriff’s office, would have been evidence of his attempt to register. 

While Appellant’s proposed instruction would certainly have 

provided the jury with greater detail about his defense, the 

standard jury instruction permitted the jury to consider these 

details and consider the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, 

the proposed instruction was a statement of stipulated fact rather 

than one of law. See § 918.10(1), Fla. Stat. (providing that, after 

closing arguments, the court charge the jury “only on the law of 

the case”).

AFFIRMED. 

WETHERELL, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Robin B. Rogers, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.