JAMES CHRISTOPHER WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 court held that the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on an essential element of proof required for civil commitment as a sexually violent predator.
The appellant was declared a sexually violent predator and committed under the Jimmy Ryce Act. The trial court refused the appellant's request for a j…
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 Sexually Violent Predator Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges a final order by which the trial court declared him a “sexually violent predator” and committed him to the custody of the Department of Children and Families, pursuant to part V of Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, commonly referred to as the Jimmy Ryce Act. Although we reject his various constitutional challenges to the Act, see Hudson v. State, 825 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), we reverse the final order and remand this case for a new trial because the trial judge erred in refusing the appellant’s request to instruct the jury as to an essential element of proof.
As we noted in Hudson, the United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of what the state must prove to permit civil confinement of sexually violent predators without offending substantive due process principles. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997); Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 122 S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002).
In Hendricks, the Court concluded that before a person can be constitutionally committed as a sexually violent predator under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, the trier of fact must find by at least clear and convincing evidence that the person has been convicted of one or more enumerated sexually violent offenses, that the person suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder, and that such condition renders the person likely to commit future acts of sexual violence. In Crane, the Court added a fourth element of proof under the Kansas Act — that the person has “serious difficulty” in controlling his or her behavior. As explained in Hudson, this fourth element of proof is likewise essential under the Florida Act. The appellant was therefore entitled to an instruction as to this element, and the trial court erred in refusing to give it. The appealed order is accordingly reversed, and this case is remanded for a new trial.
ALLEN, C.J., BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westerheide v. State, 831 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2002)…from the First District Court of Appeal concluding that the failure to give to the jury an instruction that it must determine that the offender has serious difficulty controlling his or her behavior constitutes reversible error. See White v. State, 826 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (stating that Crane required jury instruction that offender had “serious difficulty” in controlling his or her behavior); Converse v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 823 So. 2d 295(Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding that the trial court’s…
-
LEE v. State, 854 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…cases from the First District Court of Appeal reaching the same conclusion on the importance of instructing the jury that it is required to determine whether the offender has serious difficulty in controlling his or her behavior. See White v. State, 826 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Hudson v. State, 825 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Because the evidence in these cases will often consist of clinical opinions based in large part on actuarial probabilities coupled with a clinical evaluation, I would respect…
-
Hale v. State, 891 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2004)…e, 834 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The Second District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the commitment. In a conflicting case, however, the First District Court of Appeal held that Crane did impose an additional element. See White v. State, 826 So. 2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), quashed, No. SC02-2277, 891 So. 2d 502, 2004 WL 2973858 (Fla. Dec. 23, 2004). Both Hale in this case and the State in White sought review in our Court. We accepted jurisdiction in both cases to resolve the conflict. See ar…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1997)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002)
- Hudson v. State, 825 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)