Case Name: In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-NO. 2007-02 AND STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES REPORT RE: PROPOSED INSTRUCTION 2.11
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2008-03-20
Citations: 978 So. 2d 802
Docket Number: No. SC07-471
Parties: In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—NO. 2007-02 AND STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES REPORT RE: PROPOSED INSTRUCTION 2.11.
Judges: LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 978
Pages: 802–804

Head Matter:
In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—NO. 2007-02 AND STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES REPORT RE: PROPOSED INSTRUCTION 2.11.
No. SC07-471.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 20, 2008.
Honorable Terry David Terrell, Chair, Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases Committee, First Judicial Circuit, Pensacola, FL, Scott D. Makar, Chair, Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases Committee, Office of Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, Tracy Raffles Gunn, Vice-Chair, Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases Committee, Fowler, White, Boggs, and Banker, P.A., and Joseph H. Lang, Jr. of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Petitioner.
Jay Thomas, Second District Court of Appeal, Lakeland, FL, Responding with comments.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Criminal Committee) has filed a report proposing new Standard Jury Instruction 2.11 and asks that the Court authorize the proposed new standard instruction for publication and use. The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases (Civil Committee) filed a report recommending against the authorization of a standard civil instruction similar to the instruction proposed by the Criminal Committee. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
In September 2006, we authorized for publication and use several new standard jury instructions for use in criminal and civil trials addressing the situation that arises when a taped conversation in a foreign language and a transcript of the English translation of the conversation are introduced at a trial. See In re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (No. 2005-7) & In re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases (No. 2005-01), 937 So.2d 1092 (Fla.2006). We declined to authorize at that time a standard jury instruction that had been proposed by the Criminal Committee for use when the parties dispute the accuracy of the transcript of the English translation of a conversation conducted in a foreign language. Instead, we asked the Criminal and Civil Committees to further consider the issue. Id. at 1093.
On March 9, 2007, the Criminal Committee submitted report number 2007-02 proposing new Standard Instruction 2.11. The proposed instruction is identical to the Standard Instruction 2.11 that the Criminal Committee had previously proposed in its report number 2005-7. The proposed instruction was published for comment in the April 30, 2007, edition of The Florida, Bar News. No comments were received.
On March 26, 2007, the Civil Committee submitted its report, expressing the Civil Committee's position that an instruction identical or similar to instruction 2.11 is unnecessary in the civil context. The Civil Committee's position and a proposed instruction for use in civil trials (identical to Standard Instruction 2.11 proposed by the Criminal Committee) were published for comment in the July 15, 2007, edition of The Florida Bar News. Only one comment was received, to which the Civil Committee filed a response.
Upon consideration of the committees' reports, the comment filed, and the Civil Committee's response, we hereby authorize the publication and use of new standard jury instruction in criminal cases 2.11 and new standard jury instruction in civil cases 1.13, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. We believe that the new standard jury instruction in civil cases 1.13 is necessary to ensure that all jurors in civil cases consider the same evidence and that bilingual jurors do not become independent translators of a foreign language tape.
In authorizing these instructions, we express no opinion on the correctness of the instructions 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 notes and 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.
LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
WELLS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which BELL, J., concurs.
QUINCE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which CANTERO, J., concurs.
. The criminal instruction in the appendix will appear on the Court's website at www. floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/ instructions.shtml. We recognize that there may be minor discrepancies between the instruction as it appears on the website and the published version of the instruction. 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.