Matter of Use by Tr. Cts. of Stand. Jury Inst., 431 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Use by Tr. Cts. of Stand. Jury Inst., 431 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
214 citation events (79 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: ELDER v. DIXON (flnd, 2024-11-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) ELDER v. DIXON
N.D. Fla. · 2024 · confidence medium
Matter of Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So. 2d 594, 598 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Demetrius Carey v. Department of Corrections
11th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
According to the schedule of lesser offenses applicable at the time of Carey’s trial, which is “an authoritative compilation,” In re Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So. 2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1981), second-degree murder is a necessarily included lesser offense of first-degree premeditated murder, and robbery is a necessarily included lesser offense of armed robbery, see Fla. Std.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reggie Eugene Allen v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Cases, 431 So. 2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reggie Eugene Allen v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Cases, 431 So. 2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sean Alonzo Bush v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2020 · confidence medium
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 1981) (rejecting the special standard for evaluating circumstantial evidence as “confusing and incorrect”) (quoting Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 139-40 (1954)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tatara v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
M.D. Fla. · 2020 · confidence medium
An instruction on a permissive lesser included offense is precluded only where “there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser offense.” In re Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions, 431 So. 2d 594, 597 (Fla.), modified, 431 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1981); Amado v. State, 585 So. 2d 282 , 282–83 (Fla. 1991).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vernon Stevens v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2017 · confidence medium
Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gosciminski v. State
Fla. · 2013 · confidence medium
This Court deleted this instruction from the standard instructions in 1981, finding that where the jury is properly instructed on the standard of reasonable doubt, the circumstantial evidence instruction was "confusing and incorrect.” In re Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla.1981) (quoting Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140 , 75 S.Ct. 127 , 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2010-01
Fla. · 2010 · confidence medium
Rather, criminal jury instruction 2.1 — Preliminary Instructions, authorized in 1981, see In re Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla.1981), only advises jurors that they must not conduct their own research.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Damico v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
“Permissive lesser included category two offenses are those ‘which may or may not be included in the offense charged, depending on the accusatory pleading and the evidence, which will include all attempts and some lesser degrees of offenses.’ ” Id. at 527 (quoting In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla.1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moore v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Necessarily lesser-included, category one, offenses are those "necessarily included in the offense charged, which will include some lesser degrees of offenses." In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Small v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Similarly, the Court recognizes that no approval of these instructions by the Court could relieve the trial judge of his responsibility under the law to charge the jury properly and correctly in each case as it comes before him. [ In the Matter of the Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 598 (Fla.1981)].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cross v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
In Matter of Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla.1981), the court said: We approve the recommendation of the committee that the trial judge be authorized in his discretion to bifurcate his charge to the jury by giving a portion of the general instructions prior to the taking of evidence, with the remaining instructions being given at the close of the evidence and after argument of counsel.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lane v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Id. at 596. [2] Second degree murder is a first degree felony.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Green v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
The court noted that rule 3.510(a) was construed by the supreme court as not creating any new rights, "but simply as a tool to streamline a trial by eliminating the need to instruct as to a lesser offense when there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser offense.'" Id. (citing In re Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.), modified, 431 So.2d 599 (Fla.1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Welsh v. State
Fla. · 2003 · confidence medium
As the supreme court observed in In re Use By the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.1981), the "schedule will be an authoritative compilation upon which a trial judge should be able to confidently rely." The exclusion of lewd and lascivious act from the list of lesser offenses should not be viewed as a mere *470 inadvertent omission.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Floyd v. State
Fla. · 2003 · confidence medium
We have previously stated that when proper instructions on reasonable doubt and burden of proof are given, an instruction on circumstantial evidence is "unnecessary." See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla. 1981); Trepal v. State, 621 So.2d 1361, 1366 (Fla.1993) (citing In re Standard Jury Instructions. ) Floyd makes no assertion that the instructions on reasonable doubt and burden of proof were not given *401 or that they were faulty.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evans v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
The judge shall not instruct on any lesser included offense as to which there is no evidence." Thus, "an instruction on a permissive lesser included offense should be precluded only where `there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser offense.'" Amado v. State, 585 So.2d 282, 282-83 (Fla.1991) (citing In re Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.), modified, 431 So.2d 599 (Fla.1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Welsh v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
As the supreme court observed in In re Use By the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.1981), the "schedule will be an authoritative compilation upon which a trial judge should be able to confidently rely." The exclusion of lewd and lascivious act from the list of lesser offenses should not be viewed as a mere inadvertent omission.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kearse v. State
Fla. · 2000 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (95-1), 657 So.2d 1152, 1153 (Fla.1995); In re Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 598 (Fla.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Espinosa
Fla. · 1996 · confidence medium
"An instruction on a permissive lesser included offense should be precluded only where `there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser offense.'" Amado v. State, 585 So.2d 282, 282-83 (Fla.1991)(quoting In re Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.), modified, 431 So.2d 599 (Fla.1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
In the Matter of the Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1981) (emphasis added).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Nurse v. State (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
In re the Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 1981), modified, 431 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1981)." State v. Weller, 590 So.2d 923, 925 (Fla. 1991) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kellom v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
State v. Daophin, 533 So.2d 761, 762 (Fla.1988); In the Matter of the Use By the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases and the Standard Jury Instruction in Misdemeanor Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pietri v. State
Fla. · 1994 · confidence medium
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla.), modified on other grounds, 431 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Weyrauch v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
In re Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions, 431 So.2d 594, 595-96 (Fla.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
"An instruction on a permissive lesser included offense should be precluded only when `there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser offense.'" Amado, 585 So.2d at 282-83 , citing, In re Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.), modified, 431 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anthony v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
The circumstances pointing to appellant’s guilt were strong and had the court given the old circumstantial evidence charge, no longer required to be given, In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla.1981); Rembert v. State, 445 So.2d 337, 339 (Fla.1984), the jury most likely would have found appellant guilty.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Foster v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
In the Matter of Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Weller (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. · 1991 · confidence medium
In re the Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 1981), modified, 431 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Amado v. State
Fla. · 1991 · confidence medium
An instruction on a permissive lesser included offense should be precluded *283 only where "there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser offense." In re Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.), modified, 431 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
The Second District's interpretation appears to be at variance with the supreme court's statement that "this schedule will be [after its effective date] an authoritative compilation upon which a trial judge should be able to confidently rely." In re Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.), modified, 431 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1981). [5] See Harris v. State, 438 So.2d 787, 797 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 963 , 104 S.Ct. 2181 , 80 L.Ed.2d 563 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jenkins v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
Once the judge determines that the offense is a *1024 necessarily lesser included offense, an instruction must be given." Earlier, in In re Use By the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.) modified, 431 So.2d 599 (1981), the court made the following comment regarding the trial court's use of the schedule of lesser included offenses: The schedule of lesser included offenses is designed to be as complete a listing as possible for each criminal offense of the possible category 3 and category 4 lesser included offenses, which we direct to be re…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Daophin
Fla. · 1988 · confidence medium
In the Matter of the Use By the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases and the Standard Jury Instruction in Misdemeanor Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 1981); Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377, 383 (Fla. 1968).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Barritt
Fla. · 1988 · confidence medium
In the Matter of the Use By the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases and the Standard Jury Instructions in Misdemeanor Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 598 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Munroe v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
In In the Matter of the Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1981), the Florida Supreme Court specifically approved the recommended schedule, stating: The schedule of lesser included offenses is designed to be as complete a listing as possible for each criminal offense of the possible category 3 and category 4 lesser included offenses, which we direct to be renumbered category 1 and category 2.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wheeler v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
AFFIRMED on the authority of Heiney v. State, 447 So.2d 210 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 920 , 105 S.Ct. 303 , 83 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984); Rose v. State, 425 So.2d 521 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 909 , 103 S.Ct. 1883 , 76 L.Ed.2d 812 (1983); In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla. 1981) citing with approval Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 , 75 S.Ct. 127 , 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954); Herman v. State, 472 So.2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So.2d 348 (Fla.1986); Dunn v. State, 454 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Bouler v. State, 389 So.2d …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
See Heiney v. State, 447 So.2d 210 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 920 , 105 S.Ct. 303 , 83 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984); State v. Williams, 444 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1984); Williams v. State, 437 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 909 , 104 S.Ct. 1690 , 80 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984); Rose v. State, 425 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 909 , 103 S.Ct. 1883 , 76 L.Ed.2d 812 (1983); In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla. 1981), citing with approval Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 , 75 S.Ct. 127 , 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954); Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
Indeed the rule is construed by the supreme court not as creating any new rights, but simply as a tool to streamline a trial by eliminating the need to instruct as to a lesser offense "when there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser offense." In re Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.), modified, 431 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wimberly v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
This interpretation is based on In Re: Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1981), where the Supreme Court stated that the above-noted language of revised rule 3.510 would "eliminate the need to give a requested lesser offense [instruction], not necessarily included in the charged offense, when there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser offense." (emphasis supplied).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Green v. State
Fla. · 1985 · confidence medium
In the Matter of Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Castro v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
It is our intention to allow interested persons until September 15, 1981, to respond to any recommendations received in this matter. (emphasis supplied) Matter of Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions, 431 So.2d 594, 597-98 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pina v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
In the Matter of Use by the Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases and Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases and Standard Jury Instructions in Misdemeanor Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tucker v. State
Fla. · 1984 · confidence medium
In the Matter of Use by Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cannon v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
In adopting the new schedule of lesser included offenses, the supreme court commented on revised rule 3.510, and indicated that the revised rule would "eliminate the need to give a requested lesser offense, not necessarily included in the charged offense, when there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser offense." In the Matter of The Use of Standard Jury Instructions, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1981) (Emphasis supplied).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gillespie v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
In the Matter of the Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases and the Standard Jury Instructions in Misdemeanor Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1981).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Wheat v. State (3×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
Id. at 597.
cited Cited "see" Richards v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See In the Matter of Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 598 (Fla.1981). .
discussed Cited "see" Wright v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re the Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla.1981); I.T. v. State, 694 So.2d 720 , 723 n. 7 (Fla.1997); State v. Weller, 590 So.2d 923, 925 (Fla.1991).
cited Cited "see" Richardson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Use by Trial Courts of Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594 (Fla.), amended, 431 So.2d 599 (Fla.1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the matter of the USE BY the TRIAL COURTS OF the STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES and the Standard Jury Instructions in Misdemeanor Cases.
57734, 58799.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Apr 16, 1981.
431 So. 2d 594
Overton.
Published

[*595] ORDER AND OPINION OF SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ADOPTING FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES

OVERTON, Justice.

This cause is before this Court upon the report of the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, which recommended: (1) revision of the current standard jury instructions; (2) bifurcation of the instructions by giving certain general instructions at the beginning of the trial; (3) approval of instructions and a handbook for grand jurors; (4) establishment of a table of lesser included offenses; and (5) a requirement that felony murder be specifically charged. Also before us is a petition from the Conference of County Judges to approve standard jury instructions in misdemeanor cases.

The current petit jury instructions in criminal cases were adopted in 1970 and amended in 1976. In 1977 this Court requested the committee to revise and modify the instructions to make them more easily understood by citizen jurors, to consider the approval of instructions and a handbook for a grand jury, and to establish a schedule of lesser included offenses.

The extensive and dedicated efforts of the committee resulted in recommendations and a proposed complete revision of the instructions filed on March 7, 1980. We received comments from the Criminal Law Section of The Florida Bar, the Florida Public Defenders Association, and individual members of the judiciary and the practicing bar. After receipt of these comments, the committee filed revised proposals on December 30, 1980, with one modification filed February 23, 1981.

Criminal Instructions Generally

We have considered all comments and have determined the revised instructions submitted by the committee should be adopted as finally proposed, with some minor modifications.

We recognize that there was a dispute within the committee concerning the instruction on reasonable doubt; we approve the instruction as proposed.

We note that the Criminal Law Section of The Florida Bar approved the instructions as proposed except for the elimination of the instruction on circumstantial evidence. We find that the circumstantial evidence instruction is unnecessary. The special treatment afforded circumstantial evidence has previously been eliminated in our civil standard jury instructions and in the federal courts. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954). The Criminal Law Section's criticism of this deletion rests upon the assumption that an instruction on reasonable doubt is inadequate and that an accompanying instruction on circumstantial evidence is necessary. The United States Supreme Court has not only rejected this view but has gone even further, stating:

[T]he better rule is that where the jury is properly instructed on the standards for reasonable doubt, such an additional instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing and incorrect... .

Id. at 139-40, 75 S.Ct. at 139 (1954). The elimination of the current standard instruction on circumstantial evidence does not totally prohibit such an instruction if a trial judge, in his or her discretion, feels that such is necessary under the peculiar facts of a specific case. However, the giving of the proposed instructions on reasonable doubt and burden of proof, in our opinion, renders an instruction on circumstantial evidence unnecessary.

Instructions in Misdemeanor Cases

Beginning in January of 1978, the Criminal Law Reform and Rules Committee of the Conference of County Judges of Florida commenced a project to draft standard jury instructions for misdemeanor cases. The conference consulted with this Court's standing committee on jury instructions in criminal cases, and the proposed misdemeanor instructions conform generally to the format of the proposed revisions for criminal cases.

[*596] We have reviewed the proposed instructions and find that five of the offenses covered — carrying concealed weapons, criminal mischief, trespass in a structure or conveyance, trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance, and child abuse — are covered, although not identically, by the above-discussed proposed revisions in the instructions for criminal cases. To ensure uniformity and avoid possible litigation, we direct that the proposed instructions submitted by the Standard Jury Instructions Committee be used for these five misdemeanor offenses. The remaining misdemeanor instructions are approved.

Bifurcation

We approve the recommendation of the committee that the trial judge be authorized in his discretion to bifurcate his charge to the jury by giving a portion of the general instructions prior to the taking of evidence, with the remaining instructions being given at the close of the evidence and after argument of counsel. The following instructions may be given prior to the taking of evidence: 2.02 and 2.02(a), 2.03, 2.04 [but not the instructions in 2.04(a) through (e)], 2.05, and 2.07. When bifurcating the instructions, the trial judge should repeat instructions 2.02, 2.02(a), 2.03 and 2.04 after argument of counsel. Although this bifurcation is left to the judge's discretion, we believe, as did the committee, that giving the above-numbered instructions at the beginning of the case will provide the jury with a better understanding of their responsibilities and duties. We therefore encourage the use of this jury instruction technique.

Grand Jury Instructions

In accordance with our request, the committee has submitted proposed uniform instructions for the charging of a grand jury. Further, a handbook for grand jurors to supplement the charge by the court and to aid them in their responsibilities has been submitted for our approval. This project has long been advocated by the Grand Jury Association of Florida, which has reviewed and approved both the handbook and the instructions. We also approve the instructions and handbook and find that they will provide an excellent, uniform means to instruct a grand jury in clear, concise terms.

Lesser Included Offenses

The 1977 order designating the continuing Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases requested the committee to review the entire procedure for inclusion of lesser included offenses, recommend any desired rule changes on the subject, and establish a schedule of lesser included offenses for each criminal offense. The committee has recommended consolidating to two the four categories of lesser included offenses established by this Court in Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1968). The four Brown categories are:

1. Crimes divisible into degrees.

2. Attempts to commit offenses.

3. Offenses necessarily included in the offense charged.

4. Offenses which may or may not be included in the offenses charged, depending on the accusatory pleading and the evidence.

The committee recommended treating lesser degrees as category 3 or 4 offenses, depending on the offense, and treating attempts as a category 4 offense, thereby eliminating the first two Brown categories as separate categories and leaving:

1. Offenses necessarily included in the offense charged, which will include some lesser degrees of offenses.

2. Offenses which may or may not be included in the offense charged, depending on the accusatory pleading and the evidence, which will include all attempts and some lesser degrees of offenses.

Attempts, lesser degrees, and the lesser included offenses are the subjects of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.510 and 3.490, respectively. Rule 3.510 provides:

Upon an indictment or information upon which the defendant is to be tried for any offense the jurors may convict the defendant of an attempt to commit[*597] such offense if such attempt is an offense, or may convict him of any offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. The court shall charge the jury in this regard.

Rule 3.490 provides:

If the indictment or information charges an offense which is divided into degrees, without specifying the degree, the jurors may find the defendant guilty of any degree of the offense charged; if the indictment or information charges a particular degree the jurors may find the defendant guilty of the degree charged or of any lesser degree. The court shall in all such cases charge the jury as to the degrees of the offense.

These rules and their predecessor statutes have been interpreted in our decision in Brown and in later cases to require instructions on attempts and on all lesser degrees of an offense even when there is no evidence of such.

We agree with the recommendation of the committee to change these rules. The present rules have required instructions to the jury for offenses for which there is no support in the evidence and no argument by counsel, and as a result have caused jury confusion. It was this circumstance that led us to request the committee to recommend a table of lesser included offenses and modifications of our rules.

We do not view these changes as invasions by the trial judge into the province of the jury — our concern in Lomax v. State, 345 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1977). In Lomax a trial judge refused to give a requested lesser offense instruction solely because there was ample evidence to support a guilty verdict on the higher offense. This is to be distinguished from the instant changes, which will eliminate the need to give a requested lesser offense, not necessarily included in the charged offense, when there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser offense.

The schedule of lesser included offenses is designed to be as complete a listing as possible for each criminal offense of the possible category 3 and category 4 lesser included offenses, which we direct to be renumbered category 1 and category 2. After its effective date of July 1, 1981, this schedule will be an authoritative compilation upon which a trial judge should be able to confidently rely. We are releasing the schedule with this opinion in order to receive commentary from the bench and bar as to its accuracy or completeness. We direct publication by The Florida Bar, in a manner of The Florida Bar's choosing, of the attached schedule in order to facilitate such commentary, which should be submitted to this Court no later than June 1, 1981.

Subject to modification following commentary received by June 1, 1981, we intend to approve the table of lesser offenses, effective July 1, 1981. We direct the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases and the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee of The Florida Bar to jointly submit to this Court no later than June 1, 1981, proposed revisions of rules 3.510 and 3.490 consistent with this table of lesser included offenses and the committee's recommendations. Until July 1, 1981, trial judges are directed to continue to follow the requirements of Brown and present rules 3.510 and 3.490.

Felony Murder Recommendation

The committee has recommended that we recede from our decision in Knight v. State, 338 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1976), and expressly require specific allegations of felony murder in an indictment. The committee believes that this requirement will provide a defendant with more adequate notice and better identify the triable issues of premeditated murder, felony murder, or both. We reject the committee's recommendation. However, we recognize there could be improvement in the manner in which a case is presented to the jury on alternate theories of felony murder and premeditated murder. One possible solution would be the use of special verdict forms for such cases, but we are reluctant to decide the wisdom of such a change without the opportunity for full comment from the bench, bar, and other interested parties. Therefore, we request[*598] this Court's Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, in cooperation with the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee of The Florida Bar, and any other interested person or association, to submit suggestions on this issue to the Court by July 1, 1981. If these suggestions necessitate any change of rule, instruction, or verdict form, such recommended changes should also be included. It is our intention to allow interested persons until September 15, 1981, to respond to any recommendations received in this matter.

Conclusion

The Court hereby authorizes the publication and use of the revised instructions in criminal cases and the instructions in misdemeanor cases, but without prejudice to the rights of any litigant objecting to the use of one or more of such approved forms of instructions. The Court recognizes that the initial determination of the applicable substantive law in each individual case should be made by the trial judge. Similarly, the Court recognizes that no approval of these instructions by the Court could relieve the trial judge of his responsibility under the law to charge the jury properly and correctly in each case as it comes before him. This order is not to be construed as any intrusion on that responsibility of the trial judges.

The Court is confident that the forms of instructions recommended by the committee and the Conference of County Court Judges state as accurately as experienced judges and lawyers could state the law of Florida in simple, understandable language. Accordingly, it is ordered by the Court:

1. The Florida Bar is authorized to publish and distribute the petit jury instructions and the grand jury instructions filed by the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases on December 30, 1980, as modified herein, and the misdemeanor instructions filed by the Conference of County Court Judges on June 27, 1980, as modified herein. All are approved for use by the bench and bar effective immediately.

2. The Florida Bar and the Grand Jury Association of Florida are authorized to publish and distribute the handbook for grand jurors filed by the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases on March 7, 1980, for use effective immediately.

3. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.985, Standard Jury Instructions, shall apply to the instructions including instructions in misdemeanor cases. The Criminal Procedure Rules Committee of The Florida Bar is directed to submit to this Court a technical revision of this rule to reflect the inclusion of misdemeanor instructions.

4. The Florida Bar is directed to publicize the schedule of lesser included offenses as noted herein. We approve use of the schedule, effective July 1, 1981, subject to modifications following comments received by the Court not later than June 1, 1981.

5. The Standard Jury Instructions Committee is directed, in conjunction with the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee of The Florida Bar, to consider the possible use of special verdict forms in felony murder cases and to submit revisions of rules 3.510 and 3.490 consistent with the views expressed herein. All such revisions and suggestions should be submitted to the Court by the dates set forth in this opinion.

Commendations

We conclude by thanking and commending the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases — consisting of Judge B.J. Driver (chairman), Bennett H. Brummer, Judge Harry L. Coe III, Preston DeMilly (reporter), George R. Georgieff, Judge Stephen Grimes, Robert C. Josefsberg, David U. Strawn, and Quillian S. Yancey — for a long and tedious job well done. As in the past, the members of the bench and bar who shall constitute the continuing committee shall be reappointed or appointed by the Chief Justice and serve at his pleasure without compensation.

We also thank the Conference of County Court Judges for the efforts expended in drafting a much-needed first edition of standard jury instructions in misdemeanor cases.

Finally, we commend the Grand Jury Association of Florida for its persistent and[*599] dedicated work in the development of instructions and a handbook for grand jurors.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, ENGLAND and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

SUNDBERG, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, with which ADKINS, J., concurs: Also, I dissent to the proposed change in the instruction on reasonable doubt and the elimination of the instruction on circumstantial evidence except at the whim of the trial judge.

ALDERMAN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, with which BOYD, J., concurs.

SUNDBERG, Chief Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in all parts of the majority opinion except that part which approves reduction of lesser included offenses from four to two categories. Such a practice, I believe, will result in taking "a most critical evidentiary matter from the proper province of the jury and vest[ing] it improperly as a matter of law with the trial judge." Hand v. State, 199 So.2d 100, 102 (Fla. 1967); see Lomax v. State, 345 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1977). To distinguish between "ample evidence to support a guilty verdict on the higher offense" on the one hand and a "total lack of evidence of the lesser offense" on the other simply is not meaningful to me. Hence, I dissent to the proposed change in rules 3.510 and 3.490, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

ADKINS, Justice, concurs:

Also, I dissent to the proposed change in the instruction on reasonable doubt and the elimination of the instruction on circumstantial evidence except at the whim of the trial judge

ALDERMAN, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part.

Except for instruction 2.06 on maximum and minimum penalties, I concur with the Court's opinion. I object to instruction 2.06 for the same reason that I object to the requirement of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) that "upon request of either the State or the defendant the judge shall include in said charge the maximum and minimum sentences which may be imposed (including probation) for the offense for which the accused is then on trial." Instruction 2.06 correctly advises the jury:

The penalty is for the court to decide. You are not responsible for the penalty in any way because of your verdict. The possible results of this case are to be disregarded as you discuss your verdict. Your duty is to discuss only the question of whether the State has proved the guilt of the defendant in accordance with these instructions.

That being the case, there is no reason why the jury should be instructed as to the maximum and minimum penalties for the crime charged. It is illogical to tell the members of the jury what the maximum and minimum penalties are and then in the same breath tell them that they must disregard this information. What purpose is served by giving the jury information that is irrelevant and immaterial to their deliberation. I suggest that no proper purpose is served and that in some cases knowledge of the maximum and minimum penalties may divert the jury from their duty to consider only the question of whether the State has proved the defendant's guilt.

BOYD, J., concurs.