Title: In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC16-1183
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 8, 2016

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.