IN RE COMMITMENT: STEPHEN EDWARD ALLEN. STEPHEN EDWARD ALLEN, 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.
Stephen Edward Allen appeals his commitment as a sexually violent predator under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act, challenging the jury instructions used in the commitment proceeding. The court affirms his commitment, holding that Kansas v. Crane does not require a specific jury instruction on 'serious difficulty in controlling behavior,' only that such proof exist in the record.
The court holds that Kansas v. Crane requires proof of 'serious difficulty in controlling behavior' but does not mandate a specific jury instruction containing that language. The instruction given, which required findings about likelihood to engage in sexual violence if not confined, adequately conveyed the same meaning.
[1] Involuntary civil commitment proceedings for sexually violent predators are civil, not criminal, in nature and thus do not violate ex post facto or double jeopardy clause…
[2] The Jimmy Ryce Act, which provides for the involuntary civil commitment of sexually violent predators, does not violate the Due Process Clause by failing to provide less…
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“there must be proof of serious difficulty in controlling behavior”
States the constitutional requirement under Kansas v. Crane that the court must apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStephen Edward Allen was subject to civil commitment proceedings under the Jimmy Ryce Act, part V of chapter 394, Florida Statutes. At trial, the cour…
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
CANADY, Judge.
Stephen Edward Allen challenges his commitment as a sexually violent predator pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, part V of chapter 394, Florida Statutes (2001). Because we conclude that none of the issues raised by Allen has merit, we affirm his commitment.
Allen raises certain issues regarding the conduct of the commitment proceeding which are without merit. On those issues, we affirm without further comment. We comment only on an issue raised by Allen concerning the adequacy of the jury instructions.
Allen challenges the trial court’s refusal to give his special requested jury instruction, which would have required the jury to make a specific finding that he had serious difficulty controlling his sexually violent behavior before determining that he should be involuntarily committed as a sexually violent predator. The trial court instead gave an instruction that made reference to a finding that Allen’s mental abnormality or personality disorder made him “likely to engage in acts of sexual violence, if not confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment.” Allen argues that the instruction given is inadequate under Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 407, 122 S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002), which held that substantive due process requires that “there must be proof of serious difficulty in controlling behavior” in proceedings for the involuntary civil commitment of sexually violent predators.
We have previously addressed a similar challenge to the adequacy of jury instructions in Cartwright v. State, 870 So. 2d 152, 2004 WL 86180 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 21, 2004); Lee v. State, 854 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); and Hale v. State, 834 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). In those cases we relied on the decision of the supreme court in Westerheide v. State, 831 So. 2d 93 (Fla.2002), which affirmed a commitment under the Ryce Act where an instruction was given similar to the instruction at issue here. We specifically followed the reasoning of the plurality opinion in West-erheide on the jury instruction issue.
The Westerheide plurality reasoned that Crane “requires [not] a specific jury instruction but rather that there must be proof of ‘serious difficulty in controlling behavior’ in order to civilly commit an individual as a sexually violent predator.” Westerheide, 831 So. 2d at 107. The plurality further concluded that the instruction given at Westerheide’s trial conveyed the same meaning as “serious difficulty in controlling behavior.”
Cartwright, 870 So. 2d at 163.
Due to the lack of a majority opinion in Westerheide and the resulting perceived uncertainty concerning the precedential effect of Westerheide on the jury instruction issue, in both Cartwright and Lee — while rejecting the challenge to the jury instruction — we certified a question of great public importance. As in Hale, Lee, and Cartwright, for the reasons expressed by the plurality in Westerheide, we reject Allen’s challenge to the sufficiency of the jury instruction. We follow Lee and Cartwright in certifying the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance:
MAY AN INDIVIDUAL BE COMMITTED UNDER THE JIMMY RYCE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT THE STATE MUST PROVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HAS SERIOUS DIFFICULTY IN CONTROLLING HIS OR HER DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR?
Affirmed; question certified.
CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. White, 891 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2004)…004) (certifying the same question as in Lee); In re Commitment of Cartwright, 870 So. 2d 152, 163-64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (following the reasoning of the plurality in Westerheide and certifying the same question as in Lee); In re Commitment of Allen, 870 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (following the reasoning of the plurality in Westerheide and certifying the same question as in Lee and Cartwright); see also McQueen v. State, 848 So. 2d 1220, 1221-22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (Browning, J., concurring in part an…
-
Pearson v. State, 888 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…State, 881 So. 2d 93 (Fla.2002), the standard jury instruction is sufficient. The court denied the request for the special jury instruction. There is a conflict between the district courts of appeal on this issue. Compare In re Commitment of Allen, 870 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), and Hale v. State, 834 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), review granted sub nom. State v. White, 859 So. 2d 515 (Fla.2003) with White v. State, 826 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), review granted, 859 So. 2d 515 (Fla.2003). We foll…
-
Dolphus Donaldson v. State, 888 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…issue was not properly preserved below, we affirm on this issue as well. Westerheide, 831 So. 2d at 107; Pearson v. State, 888 So. 2d 110, 2004 WL 2729599 (Fla. 3d DCA Case no. 3D03-1384, opinion filed, November 24, 2004); In re Commitment of Allen, 870 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Gentes v. State, 878 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Ingram v. State, 864 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Gray v. State, 854 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). As in Pearson, 888 So. 2d at 112, we certify to the Supreme Court the i…
Authorities Cited
- Westerheide v. State, 831 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2002)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002)
- LEE v. State, 854 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- In re Commitment: John R. Cartwright. John R. Cartwright v. State, 870 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Hale v. State, 834 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)