Proposed amendments to jury instructions

first_img December 1, 2005 reason of insanity Regular News Proposed amendments to jury instructions The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases has submitted to the Florida Supreme Court a report proposing revisions to the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases. The Committee proposes revisions to Instruction 3.6(a) – Insanity, Instruction 3.6(b) – Hallucinations, and Instruction 3.6(d) – Voluntary Intoxication. The court invites all interested persons to comment on the committee’s proposals, which are reproduced in full below, as well as online at www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/proposed.shtml. An original and nine paper copies of all comments must be filed with the Court on or before January 3, 2006, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on Judge Dedee S. Costello, committee chair, Bay County Courthouse, P.O. Box 1089, Panama City 32402-1089, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. Electronic copies of all comments also must be filed in accordance with the Court’s Administrative Order In Re: Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-84 (Sept. 13, 2004). IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES (NO. 2005-5), CASE NO. SC05-1622 Proposal 1 3.6(a) 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] [She] had a mental infirmity, disease, or defect. 2. Because of this condition a. [he] [she] did not know what [he] [she] was doing or its consequences or b. although [he] [she] knew what [he] [she] was doing and its consequences, [he] [she] did not know it was wrong. Give if applicable A defendant who believed that what [he] [she] was doing was morally right is not insane if the defendant knew that what [he] [she] was doing violated societal standards or was against the law. (See Wallace v. State 766 So.2d 364 (3rd DCA 2000). All persons are presumed to be sane. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion, and of such weight that it produces a firm belief or conviction, without hesitation, about the matter in issue. 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 whether instead simply if the defendant was insane at the time the crime allegedly was committed. Give if applicable Unrestrained passion or ungovernable temper is not insanity, even though the normal judgment of the person is 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 you find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was insane, as I have defined that term for you, have a reasonable doubt that [he] [she] was sane at that time, then you should find [him] [her] not guilty by reason of insanity. If your verdict is that the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity because insane , that does not necessarily mean [he] [she] will be released from custody. I must conduct further proceedings to determine if the defendant should be committed to a mental hospital, or given other outpatient treatment or released. Comment If drugs or alcohol are involved, see Cirack v. State, 201 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1967). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1986 , and 1994 , and 2005. Proposal 2 3.6(b) INSANITY — HALLUCINATIONS Do not give this instruction for offenses occurring after June 19, 2000. 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. The person had a mental infirmity, disease, or defect. 2. Because of this condition, the person had hallucinations or delusions which caused the person to honestly believe to be facts things that are not true or real. The guilt or innocence of a person suffering from such hallucinations or delusions is to be determined just as though the hallucinations or delusions were actual facts. If the act of the person would have been lawful had the hallucinations or delusions been the actual facts, the person is not guilty of the crime. All persons are presumed to be sane. The defendant has the burden of providing the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion, and of such weight that it produces a firm belief or conviction, without hesitation, about the matter in issue. 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 allegedly was 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 you find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was insane, as I have defined that term for you have a reasonable doubt that [he] [she] was sane at that time , then you should find [him] [her] not guilty by reason of insanity. If your verdict is that the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity because insane , that does not necessarily mean [he] [she] will be released from custody. I must conduct further proceedings to determine if the defendant should be committed to a mental hospital, or given other outpatient treatment or released. Comment If voluntary intoxication is raised by the defense, see 3.6(d). This instruction was adopted July 1997 and amended 2005. Proposal 3 3.6(d) VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION Give only for offenses occurring before October 1, 1999. (See section 775.051, Florida Statutes) A defense asserted in this case is voluntary intoxication by use of [alcohol] [drugs]. The use of [alcohol] [drugs] to the extent that it merely arouses passions, diminishes perceptions, releases inhibitions, or clouds reason and judgment does not excuse the commission of a criminal act. However, where a certain mental state is an essential element of a crime, and a person was so intoxicated that [he] [she] was incapable of forming that mental state, the mental state would not exist and therefore the crime could not be committed. As I have told you, [the intent to (specific intent charged) ] [premeditated design to kill] [ (other mental state) ] is an essential element of the crime of (crime charged) . Therefore, if you find from the evidence that the defendant was so intoxicated from the voluntary use of [alcohol] [drugs] as to be incapable of forming [the intent to (specific intent charged) ] [premeditated design to kill] [ (other mental state) ], or you have a reasonable doubt about it, you should find the defendant not guilty of (crime charged) . Give when other applicable crimes are general intent crimes Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to (lesser included crimes) (crimes charged in additional counts) . Comment This instruction was adopted May 1987 and amended in 2005.center_img Proposed amendments to jury instructionslast_img read more

Industrial Safety Supplies Inc. donates 30 cones to mark race route

first_imgAS preparations continue for the historic hosting of the 13th edition of the Junior Caribbean Cycling Championships under the auspices of the Caribbean Cycling Federation (CCF), Guyana Cycling Federation (GCF) has been boosted by the support of another corporate partner.On Friday afternoon, GCF president Horace Burrowes was presented with 30 cones that would be used to mark the turn back point of the race route in Bartica, which would be hosting the event from August 10 to 11 next, in association with the Mayor and Town Council (M&TC) and National Sports Commission.Crystal Kallu, Administrative Assistant of Industrial Safety Supplies Inc., in handing over the items to Burrowes stated that they have been very supportive of sports and the development of young people and they had no hesitation in partnering with the GCF to bring off this event – the first time Guyana would be hosting same.“It is an absolute pleasure for Industrial Safety Supplies to be making this contribution to this championship which we are told would be attracting about 20 nations. The safety of the riders is of importance and therefore we trust that our contribution would go some distance in ensuring a safe and enjoyable championship for all the cyclists, male and female.”President Burrowes in response, thanked Ms Kallu and Manager of Industrial Safety Supplies, Hemant Narine, for coming on board without hesitation and promised that the cones would not only serve to ensure a well-run Junior Caribbean Championship but that the items would also help to enhance races that would be held locally.“The GCF would like to express sincere gratitude to you for this contribution. It is true that Guyana would be hosting thos championship for the first time in our history and we therefore want it to be the best ever in the history of the CCF. We can assure you that your partnership has taken us a step closer in achieving this objective.”last_img read more