Source: https://www.floridabar.org/news/tfb-news/?durl=%2Fdivcom%2Fjn%2Fjnnews01.nsf%2F8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829%2Feca765625070965d85258144005ffb76
Timestamp: 2018-05-20 17:46:57
Document Index: 505058668

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 782', '§ 782', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 943', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 776', '§ 893', '§ 381', '§ 381']

3.6(f) – JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
3.6(g) – JUSTIFIABLE USE OF NONDEADLY FORCE
25.7 – POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
The committee invites all interested persons to comment on the proposals, reproduced in full below. Comments must be received by the committee in either electronic format or hard copy on or before July 31, 2017. The committee will review all comments received in response to the above proposal at its next meeting and will consider amendments based upon the comments received. Upon final approval of the instruction, the committee will make a recommendation to the Florida Supreme Court. File your comments electronically to [email protected], in the format of a Word document. If you cannot file electronically, mail a hard copy of the comment to Standard Jury Instructions Committee in Criminal Cases, c/o Bart Schneider, General Counsel’s Office, Office of the State Courts Administrator, 500 S. Duval Street, Tallahassee 32399-1900.
It is a defense to the crime[s] of (name[s] of relevant crime[s]) if the actions of (defendant) constituted the justifiable use of deadly force. “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
Both Chapter 776 and § 782.02, Fla. Stat., and many statutes within Chapter 776 address the justifiable use of deadly force, however, § 782.02, Fla. Stat., does not address the concept of stand your ground/no duty to retreat..
The use of deadly force is justifiable if the defendant(defendant) reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:
3.	any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling house in which [he] [she] was present occupied by [him] [her].
Give if applicable. §§ 776.012(2), 776.031(2), Fla. Stat. Defendant not in a dwelling or residence or defendant was in a dwelling or residence but had no right to be there. Where appropriate, the court should state or define the applicable criminal activity that may have been engaged in by the defendant.
Give the paragraph below when there is evidence that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity or was not in a place where he or she had a right to be, which means there was a duty to retreat. Morgan v. State, 127 So. 3d 708 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Where appropriate, the court should state or define the applicable criminal activity that may have been engaged in by the defendant.
If (defendant) was otherwise engaged in criminal activity or was not in a place [he] [she] had a right to be, then the use of deadly force was not justified unless [he] [she] used every reasonable means within [his] [her] power and consistent with [his] [her] own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to the use of deadly force. The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify [his] [her] use of deadly force, if, by retreating, [he] [she] could have avoided the need to use deadly force. However, if (defendant) was placed in a position of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and it would have increased [his] [her] own danger to retreat, then [his] [her] use of deadly force was justifiable.
Give if applicable. § 776.013(1), Fla. Stat. Defendant in a dwelling or residence and had a right to be there.
If (defendant) was in a [dwelling] [residence] in which [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [or] [another] [or] [the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.) against [himself] [herself] [or] [another].
At the end of the last sentence of the paragraph below, there are two sets of brackets. The words within the first set of brackets should be read if the jury is instructed on either § 776.012(2), Fla. Stat., or § 776.031(2), Fla. Stat. The words within the second set of brackets should be read if the jury is instructed on § 776.013(1), Fla. Stat.
If the evidence is in dispute about whether the defendant was in a dwelling or residence or whether the defendant had a right to be there or whether the defendant was engaged in criminal activity, the trial judge must craft a special instruction for the paragraph below.
In deciding whether (defendant) was justified in the [use] [or] [threatened use] of deadly force, you must consider the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the [force] [or] [threat of force] was used. The danger need not have been actual; however, to justify the [use] [or] [threatened use] of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that [force] [or] [threat of force]. Based upon appearances, (defendant) must have actually believed that the danger was real. However, the defendant had no duty to retreat if [he] [she] was [not otherwise engaged in criminal activity and was in a place where [he] [she] had a right to be] [was in a dwelling or residence in which [he] [she] had a right to be].
Presumption of fear (unlawful and forcible entry into dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle). Give if applicable. § 776.013(12), Fla. Stat.
a.	The person against whom the defensive force was [used] [or] [threatened to be used] was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
b.	(Defendant) knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
Exceptions to Presumption of Fear. § 776.013(23)(a)-(23)(d), Fla. Stat. Give as applicable.
a.	the person against whom the defensive force is [used] [or] [threatened to be used] has the right to be in [or is a lawful resident of the [dwelling] [residence]] [vehicle], such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
d.	the person against whom the defensive force is [used] [or] [threatened to be used] is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter a [dwelling] [residence] [vehicle] in the performance of [his] [her] official duties and the officer identified [himself] [herself] in accordance with any applicable law or the person [using] [or] [threatening to use] the force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
If requested, give definition of “law enforcement officer” from § 943.10(14), Fla. Stat.
Aggressor. § 776.041(1), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable and only in cases where the defendant is charged with either a) an independent forcible felony, Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2008); or b) felony murder, if the underlying felony is an independent forcible felony, Cook v. State, 192 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
However, the [use] [or] [threatened use] of deadly force is not justified if you find that (defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.).
Give the elements of the applicable forcible felony but omit any reference to burden of proof. See Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
Aggressor. § 776.041(2), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable.
However, the [use] [or] [threatened use] of deadly force is not justified if you find that (defendant) used [force] [or] [the threat of force] to initially provoke the [use] [or] [threatened use] of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
1.	Tthe [force] [or] [threat of force] asserted toward the defendant was unnecessarily so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than [using] [or] [threatening to use] deadly force on (victim).
2.	Iin good faith, (defendant) withdrew from physical contact with (victim) and clearly indicated to (victim) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the [use] [or] [threatened use] of deadly force, but (victim) continued or resumed the [use] [or] [threatened use] of force.
If you find that the defendant(defendant), who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim), had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant (defendant) were those of a reasonable person.
Specific act of victim known by defendant. Give if applicable.
If you find that at the time of the alleged (name[s] of relevant crime[s]), (defendant) knew that (victim) had committed an act [or acts] of violence, you may consider that fact in determining whether (defendant) reasonably believed it was necessary for [him] [her] to [use] [or] [threaten to use] deadly force.
If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant(defendant), you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant(defendant) were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant(defendant) and (victim).
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant(defendant) was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant[him] [her] not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant(defendant) was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
This instruction should be used for crimes committed on or after June 20, 2014. See Chapter 2014-195, Laws of FloridaJuly 1, 2017.
A defendant may have knowledge of a victim’s prior specific acts of violence because he or she was present during the occurrence of the specific acts or because the defendant heard of the specific acts prior to the date of the alleged act of self-defense. See Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1999 [732 So. 2d 1044], 2000 [789 So. 2d 954], 2006 [930 So. 2d 612], 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081], 2010 [27 So. 3d 640], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 411], and 2017.
Because there are many statutes applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence. However, unless the evidence establishes the force used was deadly or non-deadly as a matter of law, both 3.6(f) and 3.6(g) must be given. Mathis v. State, 863 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Only the discharge of a firearm, whether accidental or not, has been deemed to be the use of deadly force as a matter of law. Hosnedl v. State, 120 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
It is a defense to the crime[s] of (name[s] of relevant crime[s]) if the actions of (defendant) constituted the justifiable use of non-deadly force. “Non-deadly” force means force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
In defense of person. §§ 776.012(1), 776.013(1), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable.
(Defendant) was justified in [using] [or] [threatening to use] non-deadly force against (victim) and had no duty to retreat if [he] [she] reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to defend [himself] [herself] [another] against [(victim’s) imminent use of unlawful force] [or] the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.) against [himself] [herself] [or] [another].
Give the elements of the applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit, but omit any reference to burden of proof. See Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). .
(Defendant) was justified in [using] [or] [threatening to use] non-deadly force against (victim) and had no duty to retreat if:
1.	(Victim) [was about to trespass] [or] [was trespassing] or [was about to wrongfully interfere] [or] [was wrongfully interfering] with land or personal property; and
2.	The land or personal property was lawfully in (defendant’s) possession, or in the possession of a member of [his] [her] immediate family or household, or in the possession of some person whose property [he] [she] was under a legal duty to protect; and
3.	(Defendant) reasonably believed that [his] [her] [use] [or] [threatened use] of force was necessary to prevent or terminate (victim’s) wrongful behavior.
Exceptions to Presumption of Fear. §§ 776.013(23)(a)-(23)(d), Fla. Stat. Give as applicable.
In deciding whether (defendant) was justified in the [use] [or] [threatened use] of non-deadly force, you must consider the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the [force] [or] [threat of force] was used. The danger need not have been actual; however, to justify the [use] [or] [threatened use] of non-deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that [force] [or] [threat of force], although as I have previously explained, the defendant had no duty to retreat. Based upon appearances, (defendant) must have actually believed that the danger was real.
However, the [use] [or] [threatened use] of non-deadly force is not justified if you find that (defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a[n] (applicable forcible felony listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.).
Give the elements of the applicable forcible felony but omit any reference to burden of proof. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
However, the [use] [or] [threatened use] of non-deadly force is not justified if you find that (defendant) used [force] [or] [the threat of force] to initially provoke the [use] [or] [threatened use] of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
1.	Tthe [force] [or] [threatened force] asserted toward (defendant) was unnecessarily so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using non-deadly force on (victim).
2.	Iin good faith, (defendant) withdrew from physical contact with (victim) and indicated clearly to (victim) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the [use] [or] [threatened use] of non-deadly force, but (victim) continued or resumed the [use] [or] [threatened use] of force.
If you find that (defendant), who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim), had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of imminent use of unlawful force at the hands of (victim), you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of (defendant) were those of a reasonable person.
If you find that at the time of the alleged (name[s] of relevant crime[s]), (defendant) knew that (victim) had committed an act [or acts] of violence, you may consider that fact in determining whether (defendant) reasonably believed it was necessary for [him] [her] to [use] [or] [threaten to use] non-deadly force.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant(defendant) was justified in the use of non-deadly force, you should find the defendant[him] [her] not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant(defendant) was not justified in the use of non-deadly force, then you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1992 [603 So. 2d 1175], 2006 [930 So. 2d 612], 2007 [947 So. 2d 1159], 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081], 2010 [27 So. 3d 640], and 2016 [191 So. 3d 411], and 2017.
To prove the crime of Possession of a Controlled Substance, the State must prove the following [two] [four] elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.	(Defendant) knew of the presence ofpossessed a substance.
2.	(Defendant) exercised control or ownership over that substance.
32.	The substance was (specific substance alleged).
The jury must make a finding as to weight if the defendant is charged with possessing more than 20 grams of cannabis.
43.	The cannabis weighed more than 20 grams.
4.	The [(insert name of substance listed in 893.03(1)(a) or 893.03(1)(b)] [combination of (insert names of substances listed in 893.03(1)(a) or 893.03(1)(b)] [mixture containing (insert name of substance listed in 893.03(1)(a) or 893.03(1)(b)] weighed more than 10 grams.
To prove (defendant) “possessed a substance,” the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] [she] a) knew of the existence of the substance and b) intentionally exercised control over that substance.
Control can be exercised over a substance whether the substance is carried on a person, near a person, or in a completely separate location. Mere proximity to a substance does not establish that the person intentionally exercised control over the substance in the absence of additional evidence. Control can be established by proof that (defendant) had direct personal power to control the substance or the present ability to direct its control by another.
“Mixture” means any physical combination of two or more substances, including, but not limited to, a blend, an aggregation, a suspension, an emulsion, a solution, or a dosage unit, whether or not such combination can be separated into its components by physical means, whether mechanical or thermal.
a.	The substance is in the hand of or on the person, or
b.	The substance is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c.	The substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of a substance and may jointly exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of thepossess a substance.
a.	had direct physical custody of the substance, [or]
b.	was within ready reach of the substance and the substance was under [his] [her] control, [or]
c.	had exclusive control of the place where the substance was located,
Give if applicable. See Duncan v. State, 986 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is a defense to (crime charged). You are permittedmay but are not required to infer that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that [he] [she] knew of the presence of the substance and exercised control or ownership over thepossessed the controlled substance.
POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE — 893.13(6)
Possession of Less than 20 Grams of Cannabis if the felony level of cannabis is charged 893.13(6)(b) 25.7
POSSESSION OF MORE THAN TEN GRAMS OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE LISTED IN 893.13(1)(a) OR (1)(b) — 893.13(6)(c)
Possession of a controlled substance (listed in 893.13(1)(a) or (1)(b)) 893.13(6)(a) 25.7
Starting in 2014, the legislature passed laws pertaining to “medical cannabis” or “low-THC cannabis,” which is excluded from the definition of “cannabis” in § 893.02(3), Fla. Stat.; is defined in § 381.986(1), Fla. Stat.; and must be manufactured, possessed, sold, purchased, delivered, distributed, or dispensed in conformance with § 381.986, Fla. Stat. A special instruction will be necessary in cases where a defendant relies on a cannabis-related prescription defense.
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2007 [969 So. 2d 245], 2014 [153 So. 3d 192], 2016 [191 So. 3d 291], and 2017 [-- So. 3d --], and 2018.
[Revised: 05-17-2018]