STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS RE: CRIMINAL CASES (SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT NO. 85-2)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court approved a revised standard jury instruction regarding the insanity defense in criminal cases, following its determination in Yohn v. State that the prior instruction 3.04(b) was legally incorrect regarding the state's burden of proof on insanity.
The Court approved the revised instruction 3.04(b) submitted by the Committee, which correctly allocates the burden of proof to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane once evidence raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's sanity at the time of the alleged crime.
[1] A standard criminal jury instruction regarding the state's burden of proof concerning insanity was previously held legally incorrect.
[2] A revised standard criminal jury instruction concerning the state's burden of proof for insanity has been approved for publication.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“All persons are presumed to be sane. However, if the evidence causes you to have a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant's sanity, then the presumption of sanity vanishes and the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane.”
Establishes the correct allocation of burden of proof regarding sanity once reasonable doubt is raised
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Court had previously found standard criminal jury instruction 3.04(b) to be legally incorrect in Yohn v. State regarding how the state's burden of…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presumption Of Sanity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In Yohn v. State, 476 So. 2d 123 (Fla.1985), we held standard criminal jury instruction 3.04(b) to be legally incorrect with respect to the state’s burden of proof concerning insanity. We requested the Committee on Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases to submit a revised instruction. It has done so.* We approve its publication.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur. * 3.04(b) INSANITY An issue in this case is whether (defendant) was insane when the crime allegedly was committed.
A person is considered to be insane when:
1. He had a mental infirmity, disease or defect.
2. Because of this condition
a. he did not know what he was doing or its consequences or
b. although he knew what he was doing and its consequences, he did not know it was wrong.
All persons are presumed to be sane. However, if the evidence causes you to have a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s sanity, then the presumption of sanity vanishes and the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane.
In determining the issue of insanity, you may consider the testimony of expert and nonexpert witnesses. The question you must answer is not whether the defendant is insane today, or has ever been insane, but simply if the defendant was insane at the time the crime was allegedly committed.
Give if applicable
Unrestrained passion or ungovernable temper is not insanity, even though the normal judgment of the person be overcome by passion or temper. Give if applicable
If the evidence establishes that the defendant had been adjudged insane by a court, and has not been judicially restored to legal sanity, then you should assume the defendant was insane at the time of commission of the alleged crime, unless the evidence convinces you otherwise.
If you find that (defendant) committed the crime but have a reasonable doubt that he was sane at that time, then you should find him not guilty by reason of insanity.
If your verdict is that the defendant is not guilty because insane, that does not necessarily mean he will be released from custody. I can conduct additional proceedings to determine if he should be committed to a mental hospital, or given other treatment.
Note to judge
If drugs or alcohol are involved, see Cirack v. State, 201 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1967).
*
The new 3.04(b) is appended to this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pieczynski v. State, 516 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…126. Coincidentally, on the same day that Pieczynski’s trial began, the Florida supreme court approved a revised standard jury instruction on the issue of burden of proof, Standard Jury Instructions Re: Criminal Cases (Supplemental Report No. 85-2), 483 So. 2d 428 (Fla.1986), but apparently neither the parties nor the trial court had a copy of the revised instruction.…
-
State v. McMAHON, 485 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…al had a “mental infirmity, disease or defect” and, as a result, did not know what he was doing or did not know that what he was doing was wrong. Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 3.04(b); see Standard Jury Instruction Re: Criminal Cases, 483 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1986). The determination of a defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense is a question of fact for the jury. Byrd v. State, 297 So. 2d 22, 24 (Fla.1974); Collins v. State, 431 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Here, in seeking to s…
-
In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIM. CASES-REPORT 2016-01, 213 So. 3d 680 (Fla. 2017)…is instruction to avoid the -possibility of juror confusion. See Instruction 3.6(p~) for an instruction regarding abnormal mental conditions not constituting insanity. This instruction was adopted in 1981 [431 So. 2d 600], and was amended in 1986 [483 So. 2d 428], 1994 [636 So. 2d 502], and 2006 1939 So. 2d 1052], and 2017. 3.6(nl ABNORMAL MENTAL CONDITION *Give if applicable and if requested, and only if insanity is not an issue and if no notice of intent to rely on the defense of insanity has been filed…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cirack v. State, 201 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1967)
- Tura Yohn v. State, 476 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1985)