Opinion ID: 1832580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis of the certified conflict issue

Text: In the decision below, the First District relied on the decision of this Court in Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285, 290 (Fla. 1993), to hold that the trial court did not commit fundamental error by giving the pre-modified, but then-current, standard jury instruction on entrapment. See Holiday, 730 So.2d at 830. Sochor was a capital case in which the defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication as a defense to felony murder based on kidnapping. See 619 So.2d at 290. This Court determined that the trial court in Sochor's case had not committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on that affirmative defense, reasoning as follows: Fundamental error is error which goes to the foundation of the case. Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134 (Fla.1970). Failure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundamental error. Voluntary intoxication is a defense to, but not an essential element of, kidnapping. Therefore, the state did not have to disprove voluntary intoxication in order to convict Sochor of felony murder based on the underlying felony of kidnapping. Because the complained-of instruction went to Sochor's defense and not to an essential element of the crime charged, an objection was necessary to preserve this issue on appeal. Moreover, there was sufficient evidence of attempted sexual battery, a general-intent crime to which voluntary intoxication is not a defense, upon which to base a conviction of felony murder. Sochor's claim as to this point therefore fails. Sochor, 619 So.2d at 290 (footnote omitted); see also Muteei v. State, 708 So.2d 626, 627-28 (Fla. 3d DCA) (relying on Sochor to find that the trial court did not commit fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense), review denied, 718 So.2d 169 (Fla.1998). After reviewing Sochor, we find that, while persuasive, such decision does not control the fundamental error question in this case. Specifically, unlike the situation in Sochor where the trial court did not instruct the jury on an affirmative defense, the trial court in both this case and in Miller actually instructed the jury in a manner that does not accurately reflect the burden of proof analysis on entrapment as set forth by this Court in Munoz. We believe this important distinguishing factor places the case before us under the analysis of our decision in Smith v. State, 521 So.2d 106 (Fla.1988). We find Smith controlling. In Smith, this Court considered a certified question of great public importance: Whether the jury instruction on insanity disapproved in Yohn v. State, 476 So.2d 123 (Fla.1985), is fundamental error requiring reversal in the absence of an objection? 521 So.2d at 107. This Court answered the certified question in the negative and reasoned: There was no constitutional infirmity in the old standard jury instruction because there is no denial of due process to place the burden of proof of insanity on the defendant. Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). The basis for the decision in Yohn was that under Florida law where there is evidence of insanity sufficient to present a reasonable doubt of sanity in the minds of the jurors, the presumption of sanity vanishes and the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane. Holmes v. State, 374 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 913, 100 S.Ct. 1845, 64 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980). The Court in Yohn felt that the standard jury instruction was not sufficiently clear on this subject. Since the defendant had requested an instruction which more adequately set forth Florida law, Yohn's conviction was reversed. There was no reference in Yohn to fundamental error in the giving of the standard jury instruction. The doctrine of fundamental error should be applied only in rare cases where a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application. Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981). While we do not recede from our view in Yohn concerning the inadequacy of the old standard jury instruction on insanity, we cannot say that it was so flawed as to deprive defendants claiming the defense of insanity of a fair trial. Despite any shortcomings, the standard jury instructions, as a whole, made it quite clear that the burden of proof was on the state to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As noted in State v. Lancia, 499 So.2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), in which the court rejected a claim for post-conviction relief where the old standard jury instruction on insanity had been given without objection: Different jurisdictions handle this defense in different ways, and whether the state or the defendant has the ultimate burden of proof on this issue, does not in either case make the trial fundamentally unfair. Lancia, 499 So.2d at 12 (footnote omitted). Smith, 521 So.2d at 107-08. After reviewing Smith, it is clear that the situation in that case is substantially similar to the situation both here and in Miller. The standard instruction on insanity considered in Smith, as well as the standard instruction on entrapment at issue here and in Miller, failed to accurately explain the shifting burdens of proof involved in those affirmative defenses. Further, as with the insanity defense, see, e.g., Lancia, 499 So.2d at 12, the affirmative defense of entrapment receives various different treatments in other jurisdictions. See generally, e.g., Kenneth M. Lord, Entrapment and Due Process: Moving Toward a Dual System of Defenses, 25 Fla. St. U.L.Rev. 463, 464 (1998) (noting that the entrapment defense has been adopted in one form or another in almost every jurisdiction in the United States); Catherine A. Schultz, Victim or the Crime?: The Government's Burden in Proving Predisposition in Federal Entrapment Cases, 48 DePaul L.Rev. 949, 950 (1999) (noting that [a]lmost every American jurisdiction recognizes some variation of the entrapment defense). Finally, and most importantly, this Court found in Smith that [t]here was no constitutional infirmity in the old standard instruction [on insanity] because there is no denial of due process to place the burden of proof of insanity on the defendant, 521 So.2d at 107; see also Yohn, 476 So.2d at 126 (noting the United States Supreme Court's holding in Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977), that it is not unconstitutional to place the burden on a defendant to prove that he or she was insane at the time of the commission of the crime), much as this Court held in Herrera v. State, 594 So.2d 275 (Fla. 1992), that it is not unconstitutional to place the burden on a defendant to prove that he or she was entrapped. See id. at 278 (citing Patterson to support such holding); see also Brunetti v. State, 594 So.2d 291, 291 (Fla.1992); DeLeon v. State, 594 So.2d 286 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, based on the above, we hold that it was not fundamental error to give the pre-modified standard instruction on entrapment even though such instruction did not accurately reflect the burden of proof analysis set forth by this Court in Munoz. [3] In so holding, we approve the decision below and disapprove Miller. It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.