correctness instruction in Florida

2013We made clear when we amended the manslaughter by act jury instruction in 2008 that in authorizing the publication and use of the amended standard jury instruction, "we express no opinion on the correctness of this instruction and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative instructions nor contesting the legal correctness of the instruction.” In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases —Report No. 2007-10, 997 So.2d at 404 . .

2009In approving this modification, the supreme court emphasized, "[W]e express no opinion on the correctness of this instruction and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative instructions nor contesting the legal correctness of the instruction.” Id.

1998In Foster , this court held that under the 1986 amendment, the jury should be informed that the defendant must have “been at least negligent in the operation of the vehicle, and that such negligence has been a cause of the victim’s death.” 603 So.2d at 1316 .

1989Thus, holding that a violation could be proved by analysis of a sample showing that the milk did not meet the statutory standard, the court further noted that proof by the defendant that he had not tampered with the milk which he had obtained from other producers was irrelevant and incompetent unless "the fairness of *119 the sample or the correctness of the analysis had been impugned in any way... ." Id. at 474 .

1989In Weigand v. District of Columbia , holding that knowledge and intent were not elements of the statutory offense concerning the minimum quality of the milk, [9] the court observed in respect to such strict liability statutes that if the act requires an impossible thing to be done, or something to be done in an impossible manner, the courts may declare it incapable of enforcement in a particular case, but that such fact does not invalidate the statute; "All statutes must receive a sensible construction, such as will effectuate the legislative intention, and, if possible, so as to avoid an unju

1982While acknowledging the correctness of the rule of Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Branch, supra , [2] that "the burden is on the insurer to establish that the loss arose from a cause that is excepted from the policy," the court distinguished the issue in Phoenix from the one under consideration: "There is no dispute between the parties that the theft is covered by the policy and defendant is not contending that plaintiff's loss arose from a cause that is excepted from the policy.

1972In Parsons v. Reyes, Fla. 1970, 238 So.2d 561 , and Cormier v. Williams, 1941, 148 Fla. 201 , 4 So.2d 525 , judgments for plaintiffs were affirmed.

1972In Carraway v. Revell, Fla.1959, 116 So.2d 16 , the correctness of an instruction given at the close of the jury trial was in question.

1961The facts in this case do not reflect a situation nearly so reprehensible as that in Lindley v. Lindley, supra, so that, assuming per argumenti the correctness of the rule announced by the majority on the question of the power of the court, it is my opinion that in following Lindley v. Lindley, supra, we would nevertheless be compelled to hold that the subject provision constitutes an abuse of discretion.

1961The facts in this case do not reflect a situation nearly so reprehensible as that in Lindley v. Lindley, supra, so that, assuming per argumenti the correctness of the rule announced by the majority on the question of the power of the court, it is my opinion that in following Lindley v. Lindley, supra, we would nevertheless be compelled to hold that the subject provision constitutes an abuse of discretion.

1918In West v. State, 1 Wis. 209 , the court said: “The previous chaste character of the female is one of the most essential elements of the offence; made so by the express words of the statute, in conformity with the suggestions of sound reason.

1913As we said in Perry v. Woodberry, 26 Fla. 84 , text 90, 7 South.