Title: In Re: Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases – Instruction In Manslaughter Cases
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC04-2488
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: September 8, 2005

1
Supreme Court of Florida
_____________
No. SC04-2488
_____________
IN RE:  STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN
CRIMINAL CASES––INSTRUCTION IN MANSLAUGHTER CASES.
[September 8, 2005]
PER CURIAM.
In response to the request of this Court, the Supreme Court Committee
on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases has proposed an amendment
to current Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 7.7, “Manslaughter.” 
The proposed amendment adds a comment to the manslaughter instruction
directing trial judges to carefully study Eversley v. State, 748 So. 2d 963
(Fla. 1999), in any manslaughter case in which causation is an issue.  We
have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
The proposed comment was published in the February 15, 2005,
edition of The Florida Bar News.  No comments were received.  We hereby
2
authorize the publication of the new comment to the jury instructions as
modified by the Court and set forth in the appendix to this opinion.  New
language is indicated by underlining.  The amended language shall become
effective on the date this opinion becomes final.
It is so ordered.
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO,
and BELL, JJ., concur.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS
Original Proceedings - Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases -
Instruction in Manslaughter Cases
Honorable Dedee S. Costello, Circuit Judge, Chair, Supreme Court
Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, Panama City,
Florida
3
APPENDIX
MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the
following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.
(Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof
2.
a.
(Defendant) intentionally caused the death of (victim).
b.
(Defendant) intentionally procured the death of
(victim).
c.
The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable
negligence of (defendant).
However, the defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter if the
killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide as I have previously
explained those terms.
Give only if 2b alleged and proved
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a
person to do something.
Give only if 2c alleged and proved
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you.  Each of us has a
duty to act reasonably toward others.  If there is a violation of that duty,
without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. 
But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care
toward others.  In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross
and flagrant.  Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing
reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to
its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a
presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which
4
shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the
safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of
others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an
utter disregard for the safety of others.  Culpable negligence is
consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the
defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was
likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
Give only if 2(a) alleged and proved, and manslaughter is being
defined as a lesser included offense of first degree premeditated murder
In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act, it is not
necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated
intent to cause death.
Comment
In the event of any reinstruction on manslaughter, the instructions on
justifiable and excusable homicide as previously given should be given at the
same time.  Hedges v. State, 172 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1965).
In appropriate cases, an instruction on transferred intent should be
given.
Trial judges should carefully study Eversley v. State, 748 So. 2d 963
(Fla. 1999), in any manslaughter case in which causation is an issue to
determine if a special jury instruction on causation is needed.
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985, 1992, and
1994.