Title: In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases Report No. 201306
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC13-1914
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: August 28, 2014

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC13-1914 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—
REPORT NO. 2013-06. 
 
[August 28, 2014] 
CORRECTED OPINION 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal 
Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to the standard jury 
instructions and asks that the Court authorize the amended standard instructions for 
publication and use.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
 
Following publication of its proposals in The Florida Bar News, the 
Committee filed its report with the Court.  The Committee proposes amending the 
following jury instructions:  6.1 (Introduction to Attempted Homicide); 11.14, 
11.14(a)-(g) (Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply with Registration 
Requirements); 11.15, 11.15(a) (Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator); 
11.15(b)-(k) (Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply with Registration 
Requirements); and 22.15 ([Manufacturing] [Owning] [Storing] [Keeping] 
 
- 2 - 
[Possession of] [Permitting the Operation of] [Selling] [Leasing] [Transporting] a 
Slot Machine).  In addition, the Committee proposes the following new jury 
instructions: 10.20 ([Care] [Custody] [Possession] [Control] of [A Firearm] 
[Ammunition] While a Final Injunction for [Domestic Violence] [Stalking] 
[Cyberstalking] is in Effect); 10.21 (Improper Exhibition of a [Weapon] [Firearm] 
[At a School-Sponsored Event] [On School Property] [On a School Bus] [At a 
School Bus Stop] [Within 1,000 Feet of a School]); 11.19 (Sexual Misconduct 
Between Detention Facility Employees and Inmates); and 20.20 (Mortgage Fraud).  
One comment was received by the Committee with respect to the Failure to 
Register instructions, and three comments were received with respect to the Slot 
Machine proposal.  Upon review of the comments, the Committee made minor 
changes to the Slot Machine proposal that did not warrant republication.  The 
Court did not publish the proposals after they were filed. 
 
Having considered the Committee’s report and the comments submitted to 
the Committee, we amend the standard jury instructions as proposed by the 
Committee except as noted otherwise, and authorize the amended jury instructions 
for publication and use. 
 
New standard jury instruction 11.19 (Sexual Misconduct Between Detention 
Facility Employees and Inmates) is authorized as proposed except that the citations 
for the definitions of “County detention facility,” “County residential probation 
 
- 3 - 
center,” and “Municipal detention facility,” are revised to reference the correct 
statutes.  In addition, the definition of “Municipal detention facility” is revised to 
include in pertinent part, “a violation of municipal laws or ordinances.” 
 
The new and amended instructions, as set forth in the appendix to this 
opinion, are hereby authorized for publication and use.1  New language is indicated 
by underlining, and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type.  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 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.  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.  
                                          
 
 
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. 
 
- 4 - 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.  
 
Original Proceedings – Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in 
Criminal Cases 
 
Judge Jerri Lynn Collins, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury 
Instructions in Criminal Cases, Sanford, Florida, and Judge Joseph Anthony 
Bulone, Past Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in 
Criminal Cases, Clearwater, Florida, and Bart Schneider, Senior Attorney, Office 
of the States Court Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Petitioner 
 
- 5 - 
APPENDIX 
6.1 INTRODUCTION TO ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE 
 
 
Read in all attempted murder and attempted manslaughter by act cases. 
 
In this case (defendant) is accused of (crime charged). 
 
 
Give degrees as applicable. 
 
Attempted murder in the first degree includes the lesser crimes of 
attempted murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the third 
degree, and attempted voluntary manslaughter by act, all of which are forms 
of attempted homicide and all of which are unlawful. 
 
 
An attempted killing homicide that is excusable or was committed by 
the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.  
 
 
If you find that there was an attempted killing homicide of (victim) by 
(defendant), you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the 
attempted killing homicide in deciding if whether it was attempted first degree 
murder, or attempted second degree murder, or attempted third degree 
murder, or attempted voluntary manslaughter by act, or whether the 
attempted killing homicide was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of 
deadly force. 
 
JUSTIFIABLE ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE 
 
 
The An attempted killing homicide of a human being is justifiable and 
lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a 
felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in 
which the defendant was at the time of the attempted killing homicide. 
 
EXCUSABLE ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE 
 
 
The An attempted killing homicide of a human being is excusable and 
therefore lawful under any one of the three following circumstances: 
 
1. 
When the attempted killing homicide is committed by accident 
and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with 
usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or 
 
 
- 6 - 
2. 
When the attempted killing homicide occurs by accident and 
misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient 
provocation, or 
 
3. 
When the attempted killing homicide is committed by accident 
and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous 
weapon is not used and the attempted killing is not done in a cruel 
and unusual manner. 
 
 
Definition 
 
“Dangerous weapon” is any weapon that, taking into account the 
manner in which it is used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm. 
 
 
I now instruct you on the circumstances that must be proved before 
defendant may be found guilty of [attempted first degree murder] [or] 
[attempted second degree murder] [or] attempted manslaughter by act or any 
lesser included crime. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 1994 and amended in 2014. 
 
10.20 [CARE] [CUSTODY] [POSSESSION] [CONTROL] OF [A FIREARM] 
[AMMUNITION] WHILE A FINAL INJUNCTION FOR [DOMESTIC 
VIOLENCE] [STALKING] [CYBERSTALKING] IS IN EFFECT 
§ 790.233(1), Fla. Stat. 
 
 
To prove the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the 
following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
1. 
A judge issued a final injunction for protection against [domestic 
violence] [stalking] [cyberstalking] against (defendant). 
 
2. 
The final injunction had been served upon (defendant) or 
(defendant) had acknowledged receipt. 
 
3. 
While the final injunction was in force and effect, (defendant) had 
[ammunition] [a firearm] in [his] [her] care, custody, possession, 
or control. 
 
 
- 7 - 
 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
 
Fla. Stat. § 790.001(6). 
“Firearm” means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is 
designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of 
an explosive;  the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any firearm muffler 
or firearm silencer; any destructive device; any machine gun.  [The term 
“firearm” does not include an antique firearm unless the antique firearm is 
used in the commission of a crime.] See Fla. Stat. § 790.001(1) for the definition 
of antique firearm.   
 
Fla. Stat. § 790.001(4) 
“Destructive device” means any bomb, grenade, mine, rocket, missile, 
pipebomb, or similar device containing an explosive, incendiary, or poison gas 
and includes any frangible container filled with an explosive, incendiary, 
explosive gas, or expanding gas, which is designed or so constructed as to 
explode by such filler and is capable of causing bodily harm or property 
damage; any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in 
converting any device into a destructive device and from which a destructive 
device may be readily assembled; any device declared a destructive device by 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; any type of weapon which 
will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the 
action of any explosive and which has a barrel with a bore of one-half inch or 
more in diameter; and ammunition for such destructive devices, but not 
including shotgun shells or any other ammunition designed for use in a 
firearm other than a destructive device.  
 
“Destructive device” does not include:  
a. A device which is not designed, redesigned, used, or intended for 
use as a weapon; 
 
b. Any device, although originally designed as a weapon, which is 
redesigned so that it may be used solely as a signaling, line-
throwing, safety, or similar device; 
 
c. Any shotgun other than a short-barreled shotgun; or 
 
d. Any nonautomatic rifle (other than a short-barreled rifle) 
generally recognized or particularly suitable for use for the 
hunting of big game. 
 
 
- 8 - 
Fla. Stat. § 790.001(19) 
“Ammunition” means an object consisting of all of the following: 
 
a. A fixed metallic or nonmetallic hull or casing containing a primer; 
b. One or more projectiles, one or more bullets, or shot; 
c. Gunpowder. 
 
 
 
“Care” and “custody” mean immediate charge and control exercised by 
a person over the named item. The terms care, custody, and control may be 
used interchangeably. 
 
 
Possession. 
 
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and 
constructive possession. 
 
 
Actual possession.  
 
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the 
object and 
a. the object is in the hand of or on the person, or 
b. the object is in a container in the hand of or on the person, 
or 
c. the object is so close as to be within ready reach and is 
under the control of the person. 
 
 
Constructive possession. 
Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of 
the object, the object is in a place over which the person has control, and the 
person has the ability to control the object.  
 
 
Give if applicable. 
 
Mere proximity to an object is not sufficient to establish control over 
that object when the object is in a place that the person does not control. 
 
 
Give if applicable. 
In order to establish constructive possession of an object that was in a 
place (defendant) did not control, the State must prove (defendant) (1) knew 
that the object was within [his] [her] presence and (2) exercised control or 
ownership over the object itself. 
 
 
- 9 - 
Joint possession. 
Possession may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be 
aware of the presence of an object and may jointly exercise control over it.  In 
that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that object.  
 
Inferences.  
          Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); 
Meme v. State, 72 So. 3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).  
 
If you find that (defendant): 
  
a. had direct physical custody of the [ammunition] [firearm], or 
 
b. was within ready reach of the [ammunition] [ firearm] and the 
[ammunition] [firearm] was under [his] [her] control, or 
  
c. had exclusive control of the place where the [ammunition] [firearm] 
was located, you may infer that [he] [she] was aware of the presence 
of the [ammunition] [ firearm] and had the ability to control [it] 
[them].  
 
 
you may infer that [he] [she] was aware of the presence of the 
[ammunition] [ firearm] and had the ability to control [it] [them].  
 
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where  
[ammunition] [a firearm] was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had 
knowledge of the presence of the [ammunition] [firearm] or the ability to 
control [it] [them], in the absence of other incriminating evidence.  
 
 
Give if applicable. Duncan v. State, 986 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).  
However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the 
[ammunition] [firearm] and had the ability to control [it] [them] if [he] [she] 
had joint control over the place where the [ammunition] [firearm]was located, 
and the [ammunition] [firearm]was located in a common area in plain view 
and in the presence of the defendant.  
 
 
- 10 - 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
[CARE] [CUSTODY] [POSSESSION] [CONTROL] OF [A FIREARM] 
[AMMUNITION] WHILE A FINAL INJUNCTION FOR [DOMESTIC 
VIOLENCE] [STALKING] [CYBERSTALKING] IS IN EFFECT 
790.233(1) 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
None 
 
 
 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Comment 
 
 
This crime does not apply to a state or local officer as defined in Fla. Stat.  
943.10(14), holding an active certification, who received or possessed a firearm or 
ammunition for use in performing official duties on behalf of the officer’s 
employing agency, unless otherwise prohibited by the employing agency. 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2014. 
 
10.21  IMPROPER EXHIBITION OF A [WEAPON] [FIREARM]  
[AT A SCHOOL-SPONSORED EVENT] [ON SCHOOL PROPERTY]  
[ON A SCHOOL BUS] [AT A SCHOOL BUS STOP] 
 [WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF A SCHOOL] 
§ 790.115(1), Fla. Stat. 
To prove the crime of Improper Exhibition of a [Weapon] [Firearm]  
[Sword] [Sword Cane] [Electric Weapon or Device] [Destructive Device] [at] 
[on] [within] [(insert prohibited place in Fla. Stat. 790.115(1))], the State must 
prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt. 
1.  (Defendant) had or carried a[n] [weapon] [firearm] [sword] [sword     
cane] [electric weapon or device] [destructive device]. 
2.  (Defendant) exhibited the [weapon] [firearm] [sword] [sword cane]      
[electric weapon or device] [destructive device] in a rude, careless, 
angry, or threatening manner. 
  
3.  (Defendant) did so in the presence of one or more persons.  
4.  At the time, (defendant) was [at a school-sponsored event] [on the 
grounds [or facilities] of a [school] [school bus]] [school bus stop]] 
 
- 11 - 
[within 1,000 feet of the real property that compromises a [public or 
private elementary school] [middle school] [secondary school] during 
school hours [or during the time of a sanctioned school activity]. 
Self-defense. 
If you find that the defendant exhibited the [weapon] [firearm] [sword] 
[sword cane] [electric weapon or device] [destructive device] in necessary self-
defense, you must find the defendant not guilty. Read instructions 3.6(f) and/or 
3.6(g) as applicable.  
 
Definitions. Give as applicable. 
          § 790.001(13) and § 790.115(1), Fla. Stats. 
 
“Weapon” means any dirk, knife, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, 
tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, razor blade, box cutter, common 
pocketknife, box cutter, or a deadly weapon, except a plastic knife or blunt-
bladed table knife. 
 
R.R. v. State, 826 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Cook v. Crosby, 914 So. 
2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). 
 
A “deadly weapon” is any instrument which will likely cause death or 
great bodily harm when used in the ordinary and usual manner contemplated 
by its design and construction. An object can be a deadly weapon if its sole 
modern use is to cause great bodily harm. An object not designed for use as a 
weapon may nonetheless be a deadly weapon if its use, intended use, or 
threatened use by the defendant was in a manner likely to inflict death or 
great bodily harm.  
 
 
§ 790.001(6), Fla. Stat. 
 
“Firearm” means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is 
designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of 
an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any firearm muffler 
or firearm silencer; any destructive device; any machine gun. [The term 
“firearm” does not include an antique firearm unless the antique firearm is 
used in the commission of a crime.] The definition of “antique firearm is in Fla. 
Stat. § 790.001(1). 
§ 790.001(14), Fla. Stat. 
 
 “Electric weapon or device” means any device which, through the 
application or use of electrical current, is designed, redesigned, used, or 
intended to be used for offensive or defensive purposes, the destruction of life, 
or the infliction of injury. 
 
- 12 - 
 
See § 790.001(4), Fla. Stat. for the definition of “destructive device.” 
Lesser Included Offenses 
IMPROPER EXHIBITION OF A [WEAPON] [FIREARM] AT 
SCHOOL – 790.115(1) 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
Improper Exhibition of 
a Weapon or Firearm  
(except if the weapon 
is a closed common 
pocketknife) 
 
790.10 
10.5 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Assault 
784.011 
8.1 
 
Comments 
       
The statute has an exception if the exhibition of the weapon or firearm was 
authorized and in support of school-sanctioned activities. See § 790.115(1), Fla. 
Stat.  
This crime does not apply if the exhibition of the weapon or firearm was on 
private real property, within 1,000 feet of a school, by the owner of the property or 
by a person who had been authorized, licensed, or invited by the owner to be on 
the property. See § 790.115(1), Fla. Stat. 
 
 
This crime does not apply if the defendant was a law enforcement officer as 
defined in § 943.10(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), or (14), Fla. Stat. See                
§ 790.115(3), Fla. Stat. 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2014. 
 
11.14 FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Initially Register, Report, or Provide Registration Items) 
§ 943.0435(2)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. 
 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Offender to 
Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 
three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
- 13 - 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
a. 
is a sexual offender. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual offender status an element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 
or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
Give 3a, 3b, 3c, or 3d as applicable. 
 
3. (Defendant)  
 
a. 
knowingly failed to register in person at an office of the 
sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours after 
establishing permanent, temporary, or transient residence 
within this state. 
 
b. 
knowingly failed to report in person at an office of the 
sheriff of  (name of county) County within 48 hours after 
being released from the [custody, control, or supervision of 
the Florida Department of Corrections] [custody of a 
private correctional facility]. 
 
c. 
knowingly failed to register in person at an office of the 
sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours after 
having been convicted by a court in that county of an 
offense requiring registration. 
 
 
- 14 - 
d. 
knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name 
of county) County with [his] [her] [(name the single 
unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] 
[any one or more of the following items: [his] [her] (name 
the unprovided registration items charged, as worded in the 
statute).] 
 
 
Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a physical 
residential address. 
The defendant shall provide a physical residential address. A post office 
box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply but was 
misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by the office of the 
sheriff.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 
appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 
[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
 
- 15 - 
find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 
[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 
find (defendant) guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the 
issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or otherwise 
prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty. 
    
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and2013 [113 So. 3d 754], and 2014. 
 
11.14(a) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEXUAL OFFENDER BY A 
SEXUAL OFFENDER TO COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION 
REQUIREMENTS  
(Failure to Comply with Registration of a Residence, Motor Vehicle, Trailer, 
Mobile Home, Manufactured Home, Vessel, or Houseboat) 
§ 943.0435(2)(b)1, Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Offender by a 
Sexual Offender to Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must 
prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual offender. 
 
- 16 - 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 
or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
 
Give 3a or 3b as applicable. 
3. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
uses as [his] [her] place of residence a [motor vehicle] 
[trailer] [mobile home] [manufactured home]; 
 
 
and  
 
 
knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name 
of county) County with [the (name the single unprovided 
registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or 
more of the following items: (name the unprovided 
registration items charged, as worded in the statute)] of the 
[motor vehicle] [trailer] [mobile home] [manufactured 
home] where [he] [she] resides. 
 
b. 
uses as [his] [her] place of residence a [vessel] [live-aboard 
vessel] [houseboat]; 
 
 
and  
 
 
knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name 
of county) County with [the (name the single unprovided 
registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or 
more of the following items: (name the unprovided 
registration items charged, as worded in the statute] of the 
 
- 17 - 
[vessel] [live-aboard vessel] [houseboat] where [he] [she] 
resides. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the office of the sheriff.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 
appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 
[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 
[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 
find (defendant) guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 
 
- 18 - 
on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014. 
 
11.14(b) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEXUAL OFFENDER BY A 
SEXUAL OFFENDER TO COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION 
REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Comply with Registration of Employment or  
Enrollment at an Institution of Higher Learning) 
§ 943.0435(2)(b)2, Fla. Stat. 
 
 
To prove the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply with 
Registration Requirements as a Sexual Offender, the State must prove the 
following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual offender. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
 
- 19 - 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 
or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.   
 
 
Give 3a or 3b as applicable. 
3. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
[is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at 
an institution of higher education in this state, and 
 
 
knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name 
of county) County with [(the name the single unprovided 
registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or 
more the following items: (name the unprovided registration 
items charged, as worded in the statute).]  
 
b. 
[is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at 
an institution of higher education in this state.  
 
 
undertook a change in [his] [her] enrollment or employment 
status, and 
 
 
knowingly failed to report this change in person at an office 
of the sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours 
after the change. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the office of the sheriff.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from complying with registration requirements, and the case law is 
silent as to (1) which party bears the burden of persuasion of the affirmative 
defense and (2) the standard for the burden of persuasion. Under the common law, 
 
- 20 - 
defendants had both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion on an 
affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 
appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 
[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
  
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 
[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 
on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014. 
 
 
- 21 - 
11.14(c) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS. 
(Failure to Report to Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles) 
§ 943.0435(3), Fla. Stat. 
 
 
To prove the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply with 
Registration Requirements as a Sexual Offender, the State must prove the 
following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual offender. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 
or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.   
 
 
 
Give 3a or 3b as applicable. 
3. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
having registered as a sexual offender with an office of the 
sheriff of (name of county) County,  
 
 
knowingly failed to report in person to a driver’s license 
office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor 
Vehicles within 48 hours after registering to present proof 
of this registration, and 
 
 
- 22 - 
knowingly failed to [secure a Florida driver’s license] 
[renew [his] [her] Florida driver’s license] [secure a Florida 
identification card]. 
 
b. 
reported in person to a driver’s license office of the 
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and 
[secured a Florida driver’s license] [renewed [his] [her] 
Florida driver’s license] [secured a Florida identification 
card], but in doing so, 
 
Give one or both of the following as applicable to the charge. 
 
i. 
failed to report to that office that [he] [she] was a 
sexual offender. 
 
ii. 
failed to provide that office with [(name the single 
unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the 
statute)] [any one or more of the following items: 
(name the unprovided registration items charged, as 
worded in the statute)]. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from complying, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
- 23 - 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 
misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying 
with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. If 
the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the 
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles misinformed [him] [her] 
or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] 
[her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a 
reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles did not misinform 
(defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying with the 
registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the 
elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the 
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles misinformed (defendant) 
or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.    
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014. 
 
 
- 24 - 
11.14(d) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
 (Failure to Report Change of Name or Address within the State or 
Jurisdiction)  
§ 943.0435(4), Fla. Stat. 
 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Offender to  
Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 
three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual offender. 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 
or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
 
Give 3a or 3b, or 3c or 3d as applicable. 
3. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
knowingly failed to report in person to a driver’s license 
office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor 
Vehicles,  
 
 
Give i, ii, or iii as applicable. 
i. 
when [his] [her] [driver’s license] [identification card] 
was subject to renewal.  
 
 
- 25 - 
ii. 
within 48 hours after any change in [his] [her] 
permanent, temporary, or transient residence. 
 
iii. 
within 48 hours after any change in [his] [her] name 
by reason of [marriage] [(specify other legal process)]. 
 
b. 
knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the 
sheriff of  (name of county) County, within 48 hours of 
vacating [his] [her] permanent residence and failing to 
[establish] [maintain] another [permanent] [temporary] 
[transient] residence.  
 
c. 
knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the 
sheriff of  (name of county) County that [he] [she] remained 
at [his] [her] permanent residence, within 48 hours after 
[he] [she] reported to the sheriff [his] [her] intent to vacate 
[his] [her] permanent residence. 
 
d. 
reported to  
 
Give i or ii as applicable. 
i. 
an office of the sheriff of (name of county) County  
 
ii. 
a driver’s license office of the Department of Highway 
Safety and Motor Vehicles 
 
 
 
 
and 
 
 
 
 
Give iii or iv as applicable. 
iii. 
knowingly failed to provide that office with (name the 
single unprovided registration item charged, as worded in 
the statute).  
 
iv. 
knowingly failed to provide that office with any one or 
more of the following items: (name the unprovided 
registration items charged, as worded in the statute). 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
 
- 26 - 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles].  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and 
Motor Vehicles] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] 
from complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] 
[her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the[office of the sheriff]  [Department of Highway Safety and 
Motor Vehicles] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] 
from complying, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the 
charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
[office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] did 
not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from 
complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] 
guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a 
reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of 
whether the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and Motor 
Vehicles] misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from 
 
- 27 - 
complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not 
guilty.    
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014. 
 
11.14(e) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Report Change of Residence to Another State or Jurisdiction) 
§ 943.0435(7), Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Report Change of Address as by a 
Sexual Offender to Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must 
prove the following [four] [five] elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant)  
 
a. 
is a sexual offender.  
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 
or “convicted.” 
 
 
- 28 - 
2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 
or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
3. (Defendant) intended to leave this State to establish residence in 
another state or jurisdiction on (date). 
 
 
Give element 4 or 5, or both, as applicable. 
4. (Defendant) knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the 
sheriff in the county of [his] [her] current residence within 48 
hours before the date on which [he] [she] intended to leave this 
state to establish residence in another state or jurisdiction. 
 
5. (Defendant) knowingly failed to provide the address, municipality, 
county, and state of [his] [her] intended address, when [he] [she] 
reported to the sheriff’s office of the county of [his] [her] current 
residence [his] [her] intention to establish residence in another 
state or jurisdiction. 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the office of the sheriff.   
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
 
- 29 - 
prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 
appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 
[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 
[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 
on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.    
Definitions.  See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014. 
 
11.14(f) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Report Intent to Remain within the State or Jurisdiction)  
§ 943.0435(8), Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Offender to 
Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 
five elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
 
- 30 - 
a. 
is a sexual offender. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 
or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
3. (Defendant) indicated to an office of the sheriff of (name of county) 
County [his] [her] intent to leave this state on (date of intended 
departure) and establish a permanent, temporary, or transient 
residence in another state or jurisdiction. 
 
4. (Defendant) later decided to remain in this state.   
 
5. Within 48 hours after the date of [his] [her] originally intended 
departure from this state, (defendant) knowingly failed to report to 
an office of the sheriff of (name of county) County that [he] [she] 
instead decided to remain in this state. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the office of the sheriff.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
 
- 31 - 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 
appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 
[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 
[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 
on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.    
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014. 
 
- 32 - 
 
11.14(g) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Report Twice a Year/Failure to Report Quarterly)  
§ 943.0435(14)(a) or (b), Fla. Stat. 
 
Give this statement if the charge is failure to report twice a year during the 
sexual offender’s birthday month and six months later pursuant to 
§ 943.0435(14)(a), or, for certain specified violators, failure to report during the 
sexual offender’s birthday month and every third month thereafter pursuant to 
§ 943.0435(14)(b). 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Report [Twice a Year][Quarterly] as 
by a Sexual Offender to Comply with Registration Requirements, the State 
must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual offender. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 
or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
 
Give 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, or 3e as applicable. 
3. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during 
[his] [her] birthday month in (year) to an office of the sheriff 
 
- 33 - 
in the county in which [he] [she] resides or is otherwise 
located. 
 
b. 
knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during 
the sixth month following [his] [her] (year) birthday month 
to an office of the sheriff in the county in which [he] [she] 
resides or is otherwise located. 
 
c. 
knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during 
every third month following [his] [her] (year) birthday 
month to an office of the sheriff in the county in which [he] 
[she] resides or is otherwise located. 
 
d. 
knowingly failed to respond to the address verification 
correspondence from the Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement within three weeks from the date of the 
correspondence. 
 
e. 
reported to an office of the sheriff of (name of county) to 
reregister,  
 
 
 
 
and 
 
 
 
 
Give i or ii as applicable. 
i. 
knowingly failed to provide that office with (name the 
single unprovided registration item charged, as worded in 
the statute).  
 
ii. 
knowingly failed to provide that office with any one or 
more of the following items: (name the unprovided 
registration items charged, as worded in the statute). 
 
Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a 
physical residential address. 
The defendant shall provide a physical residential address. 
A post office box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical 
residential address. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
 
- 34 - 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the office of the sheriff.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff] [Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] 
from complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] 
[her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff] [Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] 
from complying, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the 
charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
[office of the sheriff] [Florida Department of Law Enforcement] did not 
misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from 
complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] 
guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a 
reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of 
whether the [office of the sheriff] [Florida Department of Law Enforcement] 
misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, 
with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.    
 
- 35 - 
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090],and 2013 [113 So. 3d 754], and 2014. 
 
11.15 FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEXUAL PREDATOR 
(Initially Register – In Custody, Control or under the Supervision of the 
Department of Corrections) 
§ 775.21(6)(b), Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator, the State 
must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. 
(Defendant) 
 
 
a. 
is a sexual predator.  
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 
or “convicted.” 
 
 
2. 
(Defendant) is [in the custody or control of the Department of 
Corrections] [under the supervision of the Department of 
Corrections] [in the custody of a private correctional 
 
- 36 - 
facility][under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, 
but not incarcerated]. 
 
3. 
(Defendant) [knowingly failed to register with the Department of 
Corrections as a sexual predator][knowingly failed to register 
with the Department of Corrections within 3 days of having been 
classified as a sexual predator].  
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator 
that (defendant) attempted to register as required by law but was misinformed 
or otherwise prevented from timely registering by the Department of 
Corrections.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the Department of Corrections misinformed [him] [her] or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] 
not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the Department of Corrections misinformed [him] [her] or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] 
guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
 
- 37 - 
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
Department of Corrections did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise 
prevent [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all 
of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the 
Department of Corrections misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented 
[him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.    
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses  
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and amended in 2014. 
 
11.15(a) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEXUAL PREDATOR 
(Initially Register – Not in Custody, Control or under Supervision of the 
Department of Corrections or a Private Correctional Facility) 
§ 775.21(6)(e), Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator, the State 
must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual predator.  
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
 
- 38 - 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 
or “convicted.” 
 
 
2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 
transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.  
 
3. (Defendant) was not in the custody or control of or under the 
supervision of the Department of Corrections and was not in the 
custody of a private correctional facility. 
 
Give 4a or 4b or 4a and 4b, as appropriate. 
 
 
 4(a). (Defendant) knowingly failed to register in person with an office 
                of the sheriff in the county where [he] [she] [established] 
[maintained] residence within 48 hours after [he] [she] established 
permanent, temporary, or transient residence in this state.  
 
 
4(b). (Defendant) knowingly failed to register in person with an office 
of the sheriff in the county where [he] [she] was designated a sexual 
predator within 48 hours after having been so designated by the 
court. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator 
that (defendant) attempted to register as required by law but was misinformed 
or otherwise prevented from timely registering by the office of the sheriff.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
- 39 - 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
prevented [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 
If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the 
office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] 
[her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of 
the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 
[him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the 
elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the office of 
the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from 
registering, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.    
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses  
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090] and 2014. 
 
 
 
- 40 - 
11.15(b) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS (Failure to Comply 
with Registration RequirementsProvide Required Information) 
§ 775.21(6)(a)1, Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 
Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 
three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual predator. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 
or “convicted.” 
2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 
transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
3. (Defendant) knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of 
(name of county) County with [his] [her] [(name the single 
unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any 
one or more of the following items: [his] [her] (name the 
unprovided registration items charged, as worded in the statute)]. 
 
Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a physical 
residential address. 
The defendant shall provide a physical residential address.  A post office 
box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address. 
 
 
- 41 - 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the office of the sheriff.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 
appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 
[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
  
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 
[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 
on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.    
 
 
- 42 - 
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses  
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 2d 1090], and 2013 [113 So. 3d 754], and 2014. 
 
11.15(c) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Comply with Registration of a Residence, Motor Vehicle, Trailer, 
Mobile Home, or Manufactured Home) 
§775.21(6)(a)1.a., Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 
Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 
three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual predator. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 
transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
- 43 - 
 
 
Give 3a or 3b as applicable. 
3. (Defendant)  
 
a. 
used as [his] [her] place of residence a [motor vehicle] 
[trailer] [mobile home] [manufactured home]; 
 
 
and  
 
 
knowingly failed to provide [an office of the sheriff of (name 
of county) County] [the Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement] with [the (name the single unprovided 
registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or 
more of the following items: (name the unprovided 
registration items charged, as worded in the statute)]of the 
[motor vehicle] [trailer] [mobile home] [manufactured 
home] where [he] [she] resides. 
 
b. 
used as [his] [her] place of residence a [vessel] [live-aboard 
vessel] [houseboat]; 
 
 
and  
 
 
knowingly failed to provide [an office of the sheriff of (name 
of the county) County] [the Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement] with [the (name the single unprovided 
registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or 
more of the following items: (name the unprovided 
registration items charged, as worded in the statute)] of the 
[vessel] [live-aboard vessel] [houseboat] where [he] [she] 
resides. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the office of the sheriff.  
 
 
- 44 - 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 
appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 
[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 
[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 
on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.  
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
 
- 45 - 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and 2014. 
 
11.15(d) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Comply with Registration of Enrollment or  
Employment in Institutions of Higher Education) 
§ 775.21(6)(a)1.b., Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 
Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 
three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual predator. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the Court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 
or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
 
Give 3a, 3b, or 3c as applicable. 
3. (Defendant)  
 
a. 
[is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a 
vocation at an institution of higher education in this 
state, and  
 
- 46 - 
 
 
knowingly failed to provide the office of the sheriff of (name 
of county) County with the [(name the single unprovided 
registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or 
more of the following items: (name the unprovided 
registration items charged, as worded in the statute)]. 
 
b. 
[is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at 
an institution of higher education in this state;  
 
 
undertook a change in [his] [her] enrollment or employment 
status, and 
 
 
knowingly failed to report this change in person at an office 
of the sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours 
after the change. 
 
c. 
[is] [was] in the custody of or under the supervision of the 
Department of Corrections;  
 
 
[is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at 
an institution of higher education in this state;  
 
undertook a change in [his] [her] enrollment or employment 
status, and 
 
 
knowingly failed to report this change to the Department of 
Corrections within 48 hours after the change. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Corrections].  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
 
- 47 - 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff][Department of Corrections] 
misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying 
with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. If 
the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the 
[office of the sheriff] [Department of Corrections] misinformed [him] [her] or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] [her] 
guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
[office of the sheriff] [Department of Corrections]did not misinform 
(defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying with the 
registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the 
elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the office of 
the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from 
complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not 
guilty. 
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses  
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
 
- 48 - 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and 2014. 
 
11.15(e) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Report to Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles) 
§ 775.21(6)(f), Fla. Stat. 
 
 
To prove the crime of Failure Failure to Register as by a Sexual 
Predator to Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the 
following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual predator. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a [permanent] [temporary] 
[transient] residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
Give 3a or 3b as applicable. 
3. (Defendant)  
 
a. 
was not incarcerated; 
 
 
- 49 - 
[he] [she] resided in the community and was [under the 
supervision] [not under the supervision] of the Department 
of Corrections; 
 
 
[he] [she] registered as a sexual predator with an office of 
the sheriff of (name of county) County; and 
 
 
knowingly failed to report in person at a driver’s license 
office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor 
Vehicles within 48 hours after registering to present proof 
of this registration. 
 
b. 
reported in person to a driver’s license office of the 
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 
and either  
knowingly failed to [secure a Florida driver’s license] 
[renew a Florida driver’s license] [secure an 
identification card] or 
secured a Florida driver’s license] [renewed [his] [her] 
Florida driver’s license] [secured a Florida identification 
card], but in doing so, 
 
Give one or both of the following as applicable to the charge. 
 
i. 
failed to report to that office that [he] [she] was a 
sexual predator. 
 
ii. 
failed to provide that office with [(name the single 
unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the 
statute)] [any one or more of the following items: 
(name the unprovided registration items charged, as 
worded in the statute)]. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply withn 
the requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from 
complying by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.   
 
- 50 - 
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 
misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying 
with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. If 
the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the 
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles misinformed [him] [her] 
or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] 
[her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a 
reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles did not misinform 
(defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying with the 
registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the 
elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the 
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles misinformed (defendant) 
or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions. 
  
 
- 51 - 
Lesser Included Offenses  
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and 2014. 
 
11.15(f)  FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Provide Other Necessary Information Requested by Department of 
Law Enforcement) 
§ 775.21(6)(a)2, Fla. Stat. 
 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 
Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 
three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual predator. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 
transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
3. (Defendant) knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of 
(name of county) County with [his] [her] [(name the single 
 
- 52 - 
unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any 
one or more of the following items determined necessary by the 
Florida Department of Law Enforcement: [his] [her] (name the 
unprovided registration items charged, as worded in the statute)]. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the office of the sheriff.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 
appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 
[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 
[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 
 
- 53 - 
find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 
on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses  
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and 2014. 
 
11.15(g) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Report Change of Name or Address within the State or 
Jurisdiction) 
§ 775.21(6)(g), Fla. Stat. 
 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 
Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 
three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual predator. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
 
- 54 - 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a [permanent] [temporary] 
[transient] residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
Give 3a, 3b, or 3c as applicable. 
3. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
knowingly failed to report in person to a driver’s license 
office [when [his] [her] driver’s license or identification 
card was subject to renewal] [within 48 hours after any 
change in [his] [her] permanent, temporary, or transient 
residence] [within 48 hours after any change in [his] [her] 
name by reason of [marriage] [(specify other legal process)]]. 
 
b. 
knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the 
sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours of 
vacating [his] [her] permanent, temporary, or transient 
residence and failing to establish or maintain another 
permanent, temporary, or transient residence.  
 
c. 
knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the 
sheriff of (name of county) County that [he] [she] did not 
vacate [his] [her] permanent, temporary, or transient 
residence within 48 hours after (defendant) reported to that 
agency [his] [her] intent to vacate [his] [her] permanent, 
temporary, or transient residence.  
 
d. 
reported to  
 
Give i or ii as applicable. 
i. 
an office of the sheriff of (name of county) 
 
ii. 
a driver’s license office of the Department of Highway 
Safety and Motor Vehicles 
 
 
 
 
and 
 
 
 
 
Give iii or iv as applicable. 
 
- 55 - 
iii. 
knowingly failed to provide that office with (name the 
single unprovided registration item charged, as worded in 
the statute).  
 
iv. 
knowingly failed to provide that office with any one or 
more of the following items: (name the unprovided 
registration items charged, as worded in the statute). 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles].  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff][Department of Highway Safety and 
Motor Vehicles] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] 
from complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] 
[her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff][Department of Highway Safety and 
Motor Vehicles] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] 
from complying, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the 
charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
 
- 56 - 
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
[office of the sheriff][Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] did 
not misinform (defendant) or otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying 
with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of 
the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the [office of 
the sheriff][Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] misinformed 
(defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the 
registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. 
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions. 
 
 
Lesser Included Offenses  
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and 2014. 
 
11.15(h) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Respond To Address Verification Correspondence) 
§ 775.21(10)(a), Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 
Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 
three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual predator. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
 
- 57 - 
sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator” 
or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 
transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
3. (Defendant) knowingly failed to respond to address verification 
correspondence from the Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement within three weeks from the date of the 
correspondence. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement misinformed 
 
- 58 - 
[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the 
registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the 
defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the 
Florida Department of Law Enforcement misinformed [him] [her] or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] [her] 
guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
Florida Department of Law Enforcement did not misinform (defendant) or did 
not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, as worded in the statute)], you should find [him] [her] guilty, if 
all of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the 
Florida Department of Law Enforcement misinformed (defendant) or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] [her] 
not guilty. 
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses  
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d1090], and 2014. 
 
11.15(i) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Report Intent to Move to Another State or Jurisdiction) 
§ 775.21(6)(i), Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 
Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 
three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
 
- 59 - 
1. (Defendant)  
 
a. 
is a sexual predator.  
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that he has been convicted as a 
sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the sexual 
predator status element as proven by agreement of the 
parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not also give the definition of “sexual 
predator” or “convicted.” 
2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 
transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
Give 3a or 3b as applicable. 
3. (Defendant)  
 
a. 
intended to leave this State to establish a permanent, 
temporary, or transient residence in another state or 
jurisdiction on (date); 
 
and 
 
knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the 
sheriff in the county of [his] [her] current residence within 
48 hours before the date on which [he] [she] intended to 
leave this state to establish residence in another state or 
jurisdiction. 
 
b. 
(Defendant) 
 
reported to an office of the sheriff of the county of [his] 
[her] current residence [his] [her] intention to establish 
residence in another state or jurisdiction;  
 
and 
 
 
- 60 - 
 
knowingly failed to provide [[his] [her] (name the single 
unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] 
[any one or more of the following items: [his] [her] (name 
the unprovided registration items charged, as worded in the 
statute).] 
 
Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a physical 
residential address. 
The defendant shall provide a physical residential address.  A post office 
box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply 
with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the 
requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by 
the office of the sheriff.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 
appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 
[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt.     
 
- 61 - 
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 
[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 
on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.  
   
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and2013 [113 So. 3d 754], and 2014. 
 
11.15(j) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR 
TO COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Report Intent to Remain within the State or Jurisdiction) 
§ 775.21(6)(j), Fla. Stat. 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 
Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 
five elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual predator. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
 
- 62 - 
sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not also give the definition of “sexual 
predator” or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or 
transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida. 
 
3. (Defendant) indicated to an office of the sheriff of (name of county) 
County [his] [her] intent to leave this state on (date of intended 
departure) and establish a permanent, temporary, or transient 
residence in another state or jurisdiction. 
 
4. (Defendant) later decided to remain in this state.   
 
5. Within 48 hours after the date of [his] [her] originally intended 
departure from this state, (defendant) knowingly failed to report to 
an office of the sheriff of (name of county) County that [he] [she] 
instead decided to remain in this state. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure to Comply with Registration 
Requirements as a Sexual Predator that (defendant) attempted to comply with 
the requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from 
complying by the office of the sheriff.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
 
- 63 - 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
prevented [him [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 
appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 
[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 
[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 
on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.  
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses  
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So.2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and 2014. 
 
 
- 64 - 
11.15(k) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO 
COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 
(Failure to Register Quarterly) 
§ 775.21(8)(a), Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to 
Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following 
three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 
1. (Defendant) 
 
a. 
is a sexual predator. 
 
b. 
has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted 
as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the 
sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of 
the parties. 
 
 
If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after 
conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant.  See Brown v. State, 719 
So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 842 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).  If 
there is a stipulation, the court should not also give the definition of “sexual 
predator” or “convicted.” 
 
2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary, 
or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.  
 
 
Give 3a, 3b, or 3c as applicable. 
3. (Defendant)  
 
a. 
knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during 
[his] [her] birthday month in (year) to an office of the sheriff 
in the county in which [he] [she] resides or is otherwise 
located. 
 
b. 
knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during 
every third month following [his] [her] (year) birthday 
month to an office of the sheriff in the county in which [he] 
[she] resides or is otherwise located. 
 
- 65 - 
 
c. 
knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name 
of county) County with a change to [his] [her] [(name the 
single unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the 
statute)] [any one or more of the following items: [his] [her] 
(name the unprovided registration items charged, as worded in 
the statute)]. 
 
 
Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a physical 
residential address. 
The defendant shall provide a physical residential address.  A post office 
box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address. 
 
Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v. 
State, 108 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 
It is a defense to the crime of Failure to Comply with Registration 
Requirements as a Sexual Predator that (defendant) attempted to comply with 
the requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from 
complying by the office of the sheriff.  
 
There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise 
prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears 
the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the 
burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of 
production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a 
defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of 
persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 
doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the 
absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.  
See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance. 
 
If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:    
 If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of 
persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise 
prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you 
should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert 
appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed 
[him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should 
 
- 66 - 
find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt.     
    
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under 
the beyond a reasonable standard:   
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent 
[him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should 
find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt 
on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or 
otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration 
requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.  
 
Definitions.  See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses  
 
 
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2008 [983 So. 2d 531] and revised amended 
in 2012 [85 So. 3d 1090], and2013 [113 So. 3d 754], and 2014. 
 
11.19 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BETWEEN DETENTION FACILITY 
EMPLOYEES AND INMATES 
§ 951.221(1), Fla. Stat. 
 
To prove the crime of Sexual Misconduct Between Detention Facility 
Employees and Inmates, the State must prove the following three elements 
beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
1. (Defendant) was an employee of a [county or municipal detention 
facility] [private detention facility under contract with a county 
commission]. 
 
2. While an employee, (defendant) engaged in sexual misconduct with 
(inmate). 
 
 
- 67 - 
3. At the time, (inmate) was an [inmate] [offender supervised by the 
facility]. 
 
§ 951.221(1), Fla. Stat. Consent is not a defense. 
The consent of an [inmate] [offender] to any act of sexual misconduct is 
not a defense to the crime of Sexual Misconduct. 
 
Definitions. 
§ 951.221(1), Fla. Stat. and § 944.35(3)(b)1, Fla. Stat. 
“Sexual Misconduct” means the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or 
union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of 
another by any other object, but does not include an act done for a bona fide 
medical purpose or an internal search conducted in the lawful performance of 
the employee’s duty. 
 
          Give as applicable. 
“Union” means contact. 
 
§ 951.23(1)(a), Fla. Stat. 
“County Detention Facility” means a county jail, a county stockade, a 
county work camp, a county residential probation center, and any other place 
except a municipal detention facility used by a county or county officer for the 
detention of persons charged with or convicted of either felony or 
misdemeanor. 
 
§ 951.23(1)(b), Fla. Stat. 
“County Residential Probation Center” means a county-operated 
facility housing offenders serving misdemeanor sentences or first-time felony 
sentences. 
 
§ 951.23(1)(d), Fla. Stat. 
“Municipal Detention Facility” means a city jail, a city stockade, a city 
prison camp, and any other place except a county detention facility used by a 
municipality or municipal officer for the detention of persons charged with or 
convicted of a violation of municipal laws or ordinances. 
 
 
- 68 - 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BETWEEN DETENTION FACILITY 
EMPLOYEES AND INMATES — 951.221(1) 
None 
 
 
 
 
Battery 
784.03 
8.3 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Assault 
784.011 
8.1 
 
Comment 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2014. 
 
20.20  MORTGAGE FRAUD 
§ 817.545(2) & (5), Fla. Stat. 
 
In order to prove the crime of Mortgage Fraud, the State must prove 
the following element beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
(Defendant), with intent to defraud, knowingly: 
 
Give a, b, c, d, and/or e as applicable.  
a.  made any material [misstatement] [misrepresentation] [omission] 
during the mortgage lending process with the intent that the 
[misstatement] [misrepresentation] [omission] would be relied on 
by [a mortgage lender] [a borrower] [or] [any other person or       
entity] involved in the mortgage lending process];   
b.  used or facilitated the use of any material [misstatement]          
[misrepresentation] [omission] during the mortgage lending 
process with the intent that the material [misstatement] 
[misrepresentation] [omission] would be relied on by [a mortgage 
lender][a borrower] or [any other person or entity] involved in the 
mortgage lending process;  
c. received any [proceeds] [or other funds] in connection with the 
mortgage lending process that [he] [she] knew resulted from the 
making of any material [misstatement] [misrepresentation] 
[omission] during the mortgage lending process that was made 
with the intent that the [misstatement] [misrepresentation] 
 
- 69 - 
[omission] would be relied on by [a mortgage lender] [a borrower] 
[or] [any other person or entity] involved in the mortgage lending 
process];  
d. received any [proceeds] [or other funds] in connection with the 
mortgage lending process that [he] [she] knew resulted from the 
use of any material [misstatement] [misrepresentation] [omission] 
during the mortgage lending process that was made with the 
intent that the material [misstatement] [misrepresentation] 
[omission] would be relied on by [a mortgage lender] [a borrower] 
or [any other person or entity] involved in the mortgage lending 
process];  
e. filed or caused to be filed with the clerk of the circuit court for        
any Florida county a document involved in the mortgage lending 
process which contained a material [misstatement] 
[misrepresentation] [or] [omission]. 
Give if applicable. § 817.545(5)(b), Fla. Stat. 
If you find that the defendant guilty of Mortgage Fraud, you must also 
determine if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether the loan 
value stated on documents used in the mortgage lending process exceeded 
$100,000. 
 
§ 817.545(2)(a) & (b), Fla. Stat. 
Omissions on a loan application regarding employment, income, or 
assets for a loan which does not require this information are not considered 
material omissions for purposes of Mortgage Fraud. 
 
§ 817.545(1), Fla. Stat. 
Documents involved in the mortgage lending process include, but are 
not limited to, mortgages, deeds, surveys, inspection reports, uniform 
residential loan applications, or other loan applications; appraisal reports; 
HUD-1 settlement statements; supporting personal documentation for loan 
applications such as W-2 forms, verifications of income and employment, 
credit reports, bank statements, tax returns, and payroll stubs; and any 
required disclosures. 
 
§ 817.545(1), Fla. Stat. 
“Mortgage lending process” means the process through which a person 
seeks or obtains a residential mortgage loan, including, but not limited to, the 
 
- 70 - 
solicitation, application or origination, negotiation of terms, third-party 
provider services, underwriting, signing and closing, and funding of the loan. 
 
“Knowingly” means that the defendant is aware of the act and is not 
acting through ignorance, mistake or accident. 
 
“Material” means a fact a reasonable person would use to decide 
whether to do or not to do something.  A fact is material if it has the capacity 
or natural tendency to influence a person’s decision.  Any misrepresentation 
or concealment must be reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary 
prudence and comprehension. 
 
 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
MORTGAGE FRAUD — 817.545 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
None 
 
 
 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Comment 
 
The crime of Mortgage Fraud may not be predicated solely upon information 
lawfully disclosed under federal disclosure laws, regulations, or interpretations 
related to the mortgage lending process. See § 817.545(3), Fla. Stat. 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2014.    
 
22.15  [MANUFACTUING] [OWNING] [STORING] [KEEPING] 
[POSSESSION OF] [PERMITTING THE OPERATION OF] [SELLING] 
[LEASING] [TRANSPORTING]OF A SLOT MACHINE 
§ 849.15(1)(a) and (b), Fla. Stat. 
 
 
To prove the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the 
following element beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
           Give as applicable.  
          (Defendant)  
 
 
- 71 - 
a. [manufactured] [owned] [stored] [kept] [possessed] 
[sold] [leased] [let on shares] [lent] [gave away] [transported] 
[exposed for sale or lease] any slot machine or device [or any part 
of a slot machine or device]. 
 
b. offered to [sell] [rent] [lease] [let on shares] [lend] [give away] any 
slot machine or device [or any part of a slot machine or device]. 
 
c. permitted the operation of any slot machine or device [or any part 
of a slot machine or device]. 
 
d. permitted any slot machine or device [or any part of 
           
 
a slot machine or device] to be [placed] [maintained] [used] [kept] 
           
in a [room] [space] [building] owned, leased, or occupied by [him] 
           
[her] or under [his] [her] management or control.  
 
e. [or permitted to be made] an agreement with another,  pursuant 
to which the user of any slot machine or device, as a result of any 
element of chance [or other outcome unpredictable to him or her] 
may become entitled to receive [money] [credit] [allowance] [a 
thing of value] [an additional chance or right to use the slot 
machine or device] [any [check] [slug] [token] [memorandum] 
entitling the holder to receive [money] [credit] [allowance] [or] 
[thing of value]].          
 
 
§ 849.16, Fla. Stat. 
 
A “slot machine or device” is a machine or device or system or network 
of devices that is adapted for use in such a way that, upon activation, which 
may be achieved by, but is not limited to, as a result of the insertion of any 
piece of money, coin, account number, code, or other object or information, 
such device or system is directly or indirectly caused to operate or may be 
operated or other object, such machine or device is caused to operate or may 
be operated and if the user, whether by application of skill or by reason of any 
element of chance or of any other outcome of such operation unpredictable by 
him or her, the user, may:  
 
  
(a) receive or become entitled to receive any piece of money, credit,  
                   allowance, or thing of value; or  
 
 
- 72 - 
(b)    receive or become entitled to receive any check, slug, token, or 
memorandum, whether of value or otherwise, which may be 
exchanged for any money, credit, allowance, or thing of value or 
which may be given in trade; or 
 
(c)   secure additional chances or rights to use such machine, 
apparatus, or device, even though the device or system may be 
available for free play, or, it may, in addition to any element of 
chance or unpredictable outcome of such operation, may also sell, 
deliver, or present some merchandise, indication of weight, 
entertainment, or other thing of value. 
 
Give if applicable. §§ 849.16(1)(b), 551.102(8), Fla. Stats. 
A “slot machine” includes, but is not limited to, devices regulated as slot 
machines under chapter 551 of Florida Statutes. Under chapter 551, a “slot 
machine” means any mechanical or electrical contrivance, terminal that may 
or may not be capable of downloading slot games from a central server 
system, machine, or other device that, upon insertion of a coin, bill, ticket, 
token, or similar object or upon payment of any consideration whatsoever, 
including the use of any electronic payment system except a credit card or 
debit card, is available to play or operate, the play or operation of which, 
whether by reason of skill or application of the element of chance or both, 
may deliver or entitle the person or persons playing or operating the 
contrivance, terminal, machine, or other device to receive cash, billets, tickets, 
tokens, or electronic credits to be exchanged for cash or to receive 
merchandise or anything of value whatsoever, whether the payoff is made 
automatically from the machine or manually. The term includes associated 
equipment necessary to conduct the operation of the contrivance, terminal, 
machine, or other device. Slot machines may use spinning reels, video 
displays, or both. [A slot machine is not a “coin-operated amusement 
machine” as defined in § 212.02(24), Fla. Stat. or an amusement game or 
machine as described in § 849.161, Fla. Stat.] Instruct on § 212.02(24), Fla. Stat. 
or § 849.161, Fla. Stat. as applicable.   
 
Give if applicable. § 849.094(8)(a), Fla. Stat. 
Compliance with the rules of the Department of Agriculture and 
Consumer Services is not a defense to a charge of Possession of a Slot Machine 
or Device.  
 
Give if applicable. § 849.16(3), Fla. Stat. 
 
- 73 - 
You are permitted to infer that a device, system, or network is a 
prohibited slot machine or device if it is used to display images of games of 
chance and is part of a scheme involving any payment or donation of money 
or its equivalent and awarding anything of value. 
 
Lesser Included Offenses 
 
[POSSESSION] [PERMITTING THE OPERATION] OF A SLOT 
MACHINE — 849.15(1)(a) and (b) 
CATEGORY ONE 
CATEGORY TWO 
FLA. STAT. 
INS. NO. 
None 
 
 
 
 
Attempt 
777.04(1) 
5.1 
 
Comments 
 
 
It is not necessary for the State to prove that the slot machine or device was 
used for gambling. See Eccles v. Stone, 183 So. 628 (Fla. 1938); Dept. of Business 
Regulation v. Rains, 477 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). 
 
 
It is a defense to Possession of a Slot Machine if the device is an antique slot 
machine and is not being used for gambling. An antique slot machine is one which 
was manufactured at least 20 years prior to the prosecution. See § 849.235, Fla. 
Stat. 
 
 
This instruction was adopted in 2013 [122 So. 3d 302] and amended in 2014.