Supreme Court of Florida

Transcription

1 Supreme Court of Florida In the matter of use by the trial courts of the Standard Jury Instructions Case No. SC in Criminal Cases / Report No Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases To the Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court of Florida: This report regarding proposed amendments to the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases on the Supreme Court s website at is filed pursuant to Article V, section 2(a), Florida Constitution. The committee proposes the following amended and new criminal jury instructions: Proposal (a) Single Defendant, Multiple Counts or Informations Proposal (c) Multiple Counts or Informations, Multiple Defendants Proposal (d) Legally Interlocking Crimes The proposed amended instructions and proposed new instruction can be found in legislative format at Appendix A. Words to be added are shown by underlining. These proposals have not been published by the committee in The Florida Bar News. A memorandum by Judge Carole Taylor supporting the

2 proposals is attached at Appendix B. A copy of the opinion in Brown v. State, 959 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2007) is attached at Appendix C. Explanation of Proposals The Court wrote to the committee on June 27, 2007, and requested that the committee file a report with the Court proposing amendments to standard jury instruction 3.12(a), in light of the Court's decision in Dewarn Antonio Brown v. State of Florida, Case No. SC (Fla. June 14, 2007). The response date to file a report with the Clerk of the Court was January 2, The committee moved for an extension of time, and the clerk reset the response date to file a report to March 28, Judge Taylor, Judge Terrell, and Angelica Zayas volunteered to work on the issue. Judge Taylor concluded that it would be better to create a new proposed instruction 3.12(d), rather than attempt to just modify existing instruction 3.12(a). The committee met on November 16, 2007, to discuss a new proposed instruction 3.12(d), in light of the Court's letter to the committee. The committee approved the recommendation. A memorandum explaining the rationale for the proposal is attached to this report. While working on a report to the Court, Judge Terrell consulted Judge Taylor and Mrs. Zayas on whether some direction on the interplay of instruction 3.12(d) with instructions 3.12(a & c) needed to be given. They agreed. Judge Terrell drafted revised comments for each of the instructions. The motion for extension of time was filed to give the committee an opportunity to consider the revised comments. The committee met February 15, 2008, and approved revisions of instructions 3.12 (a, c, & d). The proposals are set forth below. It should be noted that committee member Bart Schneider felt that if the law recognizes that inconsistencies are permissible due to jury lenity, then that principle should apply to what the courts label as "true inconsistent verdicts." He believed that Florida should follow federal law which recognizes that acquittals may result from compromise and leniency and do not necessarily arise from factual findings of innocence or a lack of proof. He thought that it would be difficult to draft a jury instruction because the case law in Florida is contradictory on this issue. He cited the cases of Dial v. State, 922 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2006); Williams v. State, 745 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1999); and Perez v. State, 718 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1998). Nevertheless, Mr. Schneider agreed that all the proposals should be considered by the committee. 2

3 Proposal 1 Instruction 3.12(a) Single Defendant, Multiple Counts or Informations The current instruction has been amended to add the following comment to the instruction. See instruction 3.12(d) if legally interlocking crimes are charged, but this instruction should be read for any non-legally interlocking counts. This comment advises the trial judge to give this instruction only when nonlegally interlocking counts are charged in an information or indictment, or there are other charges contained in a separate information or indictment. Proposal 2 Instruction 3.12(c) Multiple Counts or Informations, Multiple Defendants The current instruction has been amended to add the following comment to the instruction. See instruction 3.12(d) if legally interlocking crimes are charged, but this instruction should be read for any non-legally interlocking counts, or multiple informations or indictments. This comment advises the trial judge to give this instruction only when nonlegally interlocking counts are charged in more than one count of an information or indictment, or there are multiple informations or indictments, and there are multiple defendants. Proposal 3 Instruction 3.12(d) 3.12(d) Legally Interlocking Crimes The proposed instruction is patterned after the concurring opinion of Judge Charles M. Harris of the 5 th District Court of Appeal in the case of Cuevas v. State, 741 So. 2d 1234, 1240 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1999). Judge Harris suggested that the criminal jury instructions committee propose an instruction to the Court which would advise the jury that: 3

4 [W]hen counts involving legally interlocking charges are involved, the jury should first consider the predicate offense and should it find such offense not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it should acquit also on the compound felony. On the other hand, if the predicate offense is sufficiently proved, then the jury should be instructed to consider the count alleging the compound felony. The proposed comment to the instruction is intended to help the trial courts identify legally interlocking charges and avoid truly inconsistent verdicts error. The comment notes that inconsistent verdicts are generally permitted because they may reflect jury lenity. It further notes the exception to the general rule and provides the definition of true inconsistent verdicts as given in Brown and in Gonzalez v. State, 440 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1983). The proposed instruction reads as follows. Legally interlocking crimes are charged in (insert counts of information or indictment). Before you consider the evidence applicable to (insert compound charge/count), you must first consider the evidence applicable to (insert predicate charge/count). If you find that the crime charged in (insert predicate charge/count) has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you must also find that the crime charged in (insert compound charge/count) has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, a verdict of not guilty in (insert predicate charge/count) requires a verdict of not guilty in (insert compound charge/count). If, on the other hand, you find that the crime charged in (insert predicate charge/count) has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you must then consider the evidence applicable to (insert compound charge/count). A guilty verdict as to (insert predicate charge/count) does not require a guilty verdict as to (insert compound charge/count) unless you find that the crime charged in (insert compound charge/count) has also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Comment Do not read instruction 3.12(a) if the jury is instructed only on legally interlocking crimes. 4

5 Legally interlocking crimes are charged when the crime charged in one count of the information or indictment is an essential element of the crime charged in another count. As a general rule, inconsistent verdicts are permitted because they may be the result of jury lenity. There is only one recognized exception to this general rule, namely, the true inconsistent verdict exception. True inconsistent verdicts are those in which an acquittal on one count negates a necessary element for conviction on another count. Read cases such as Brown v. State, 959 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2007) and Gonzalez v. State, 440 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). All three of the proposals were approved by a unanimous vote of the committee. Respectfully submitted this day of February, The Honorable Terry David Terrell First Judicial Circuit Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases M. C. Blanchard Judicial Center 190 W. Government Street Pensacola, Florida Florida Bar Number

6 CERTIFICATE OF FONT SIZE I hereby certify that this report has been prepared using Times New Roman 14 point font in compliance with the font requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(a)(2). THE HONORABLE TERRY D. TERRELL Chair, Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases Florida Bar Number