modified instruction in Florida

2009Therefore, based on a comprehensive reading of chapter 985, we reiterate and adopt the following modified analysis, quash the decision of the Fourth District in E.A.R. v. State, 975 So.2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and disapprove its decision in A.T. v. State, 983 So.2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

2009Therefore, based on a comprehensive reading of chapter 985, we reiterate and adopt the following modified analysis, quash the decision of the Fourth District in E.A.R. v. State, 975 So.2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and disapprove its decision in A.T. v. State, 983 So.2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

2009Therefore, based on a comprehensive reading of chapter 985, we reiterate and adopt the following modified analysis, quash the decision of the Fourth District in E.A.R. v. State, 975 So.2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and disapprove its decision in A.T. v. State, 983 So.2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

2009Therefore, based on a comprehensive reading of chapter 985, we reiterate and adopt the following modified analysis, quash the decision of the Fourth District in E.A.R. v. State, 975 So.2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and disapprove its decision in A.T. v. State, 983 So.2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

2006Subsequent to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 85 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), holding that the Equal Protection Clause forbids prosecutors from exercising peremptory challenges solely on the basis of race, this Court modified its test for evaluating peremptory challenges in Slappy.

2006Subsequent to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 85 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), holding that the Equal Protection Clause forbids prosecutors from exercising peremptory challenges solely on the basis of race, this Court modified its test for evaluating peremptory challenges in Slappy.

2025We are mindful that "the focus in a bad faith case is not on the actions of the claimant but rather on those of the insurer in fulfilling its obligations to the insured." Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 7 (quoting Berges, 896 So. 2d at 677 ).

2025We are mindful that "the focus in a bad faith case is not on the actions of the claimant but rather on those of the insurer in fulfilling its obligations to the insured." Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 7 (quoting Berges, 896 So. 2d at 677 ).

2014Id.

2014Again, citing to Butler , the Hansen court held: “The trial court’s modified instruction shifted the focus of the case from the defendant to the victim and her right to use force.” Id. at 203 .

2014Moreover, the court was concerned that “[t]he instruction also implied that [the victim] was ‘faced with the wrongful entry to [her] home’ by [the defendant], a fact that was disputed at trial and critical to the jury’s determination of whether [the victim] was the initial aggressor and whether [the defendant] was therefore justified in using force to defend himself.” Id.

2004Id.

2003Appellants moved for a new trial claiming that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury with their requested special instruction which conformed to the recent Florida Supreme Court decision in Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So.2d 315 (Fla.2001), and instead used a modified instruction which did not conform to the holding in Owens .

2003Relying on Batson , this Court modified the test for evaluating peremptory challenges under Neil in State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.1988).

2003This Court stated that the test required a "clear and reasonably specific" race-neutral explanation of "legitimate reasons." 522 So.2d at 22 (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 20, 106 S.Ct. 1712 ).

2003In Campbell v. State, 812 So.2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the defendant requested an instruction that: "a person may lawfully resist an illegal arrest without using any force or violence." On appeal, the Fourth District found no abuse of discretion in the failure to give the particular instruction requested, but held that "because appellant maintained that the arrest was unlawful, he was entitled to a modified standard instruction clarifying that the legality of his arrest was an issue for the jury to decide." Id.

2003In Campbell v. State, 812 So.2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the defendant requested an instruction that: "a person may lawfully resist an illegal arrest without using any force or violence." On appeal, the Fourth District found no abuse of discretion in the failure to give the particular instruction requested, but held that "because appellant maintained that the arrest was unlawful, he was entitled to a modified standard instruction clarifying that the legality of his arrest was an issue for the jury to decide." Id.

2003We share appellant’s concern that the modified instruction on non-deadly force violated the precepts of Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), but in light of our resolution of this case, it is unnecessary for us to reach that issue. .

2002See State v. Anderson, 639 So.2d 609 (Fla.1994)(holding that where a defendant maintains that arrest was unlawful and requests that jury be instructed on defense of unlawful arrest, an instruction should be given to insure that jury understands that it must decide that issue); Hampton v. State, 733 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

2001Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000).

1996Second of all, although our supreme court in Young analogized possession of recently stolen property to evidence of flight—both are incriminating evidence which the jury may consider in determining guilt—our supreme court in Fenelon v. State, 594 So.2d 292 (Fla.1992), expressly disapproved of a jury instruction on flight as an impermissible comment on the evidence.

1995See Tooley v. Margulies, 79 So.2d 421 (Fla. 1955); Thursby v. Reynolds Metals Co., 466 So.2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (no error in refusing to give requested instructions on issues adequately covered by the court’s instructions), review denied, 476 So.2d 676 (Fla.1985).

1995Hamilton, 645 So.2d at 558 .