March 1, 2010 Managing Editor Regular News Dempsey to be publicly reprimanded for using false campaign materials Dempsey to be publicly reprimanded for using false campaign materialsMark D. Killian Managing EditorSecond Circuit Judge Angela Dempsey has been ordered to appear before the Florida Supreme Court to be publicly reprimanded for campaign conduct violations during her 2008 campaign. In case no. SC09-1747, the court on February 4 approved the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s sanctions for Dempsey’s misconduct.According to the court’s order, Dempsey and the JQC stipulated the following:• During the campaign, an advertisement appeared on YouTube titled “re-elect” Judge Dempsey when she had not previously been elected to the circuit court but instead had been appointed to the bench in 2005, in violation of Canon 7(A)(3)(d)(ii).• During the campaign, one of Dempsey’s mailers represented to the voting public that she had 20 years of legal experience when in fact Dempsey was not admitted to practice law until 1994, in violation of Canon 7A(3)(d)(ii).On January 29, 2009, Judge Dempsey testified under oath and admitted to the alleged conduct at a hearing before the JQC, apologized for her improper conduct, and accepted the public reprimand as recommended by the panel.“It is clear that a member of the judiciary or judicial candidate should not mislead the public by placing factually incorrect statements in campaign materials,” the court said. “We have stated that ‘a voter should not be required to read the fine print in an election campaign flyer to correct a misrepresentation contained in large, bold letters.’”The court said the misleading information contained within Judge Dempsey’s campaign materials was placed within the materials deliberately and was done for the purpose of bolstering her own experience and credibility to the voting public.“Without a doubt, Judge Dempsey’s conduct was wholly inappropriate,” the court said, adding existing precedent suggested her conduct warranted a public reprimand.
n. [the stolen property was [a will, codicil, or other testamentary instrument][a firearm] [a motor vehicle] [a commercially farmed animal] [an aquaculture species raised at a certified aquaculture facility] [a fire extinguisher] [2,000 or more pieces of citrus fruit] [taken from a legally posted construction site] [a stop sign] [anhydrous ammonia] [a controlled substance. Under Florida law, ( name of controlled substance ) is a controlled substance.]] o. [the value of the property taken was $100 or more but less than $300, and was taken from [a dwelling] [the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling].] None Criminal case jury instructions THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES submits the following amended and new instructions to the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases for comment. The committee proposes the following instructions: 7.11 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS – CAPITAL CASES 11.10(c) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS MOLESTATION 13.1 BURGLARY 14.1 THEFT The committee invites all interested persons to comment on the proposals, reproduced in full below. Comments must be received by the committee in both hard copy and electronic format on or before February 15, 2012.The committee will review all comments received in response to the above proposal at its next meeting and will consider amendments based upon the comments received. Upon final approval of the instruction, the committee will make a recommendation to the Florida Supreme Court.Please file your comments electronically to CrimJuryInst@flcourts.org, in the format of a Word document. In addition, mail a hard copy of your comments to: Standard Jury Instructions Committee in Criminal Cases, c/o Mr. Bart Schneider, General Counsel’s Office, Office of the State Courts Administrator 500 S. Duval Street, Tallahassee 32399-1900 7.11 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS — CAPITAL CASES §921.141, Fla. Stat. Give 1a at the beginning of penalty proceedings before a jury that did not try the issue of guilt. Give bracketed language if the case has been remanded by the supreme court for a new penalty proceeding. See Hitchcock v. State, 673 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1996). In addition, give the jury other appropriate general instructions. 1. a. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant has been found guilty of Murder in the First Degree. [An appellate court has reviewed and affirmed the defendant’s conviction. However, the appellate court sent the case back to this court with instructions that the defendant is to have a new trial to decide what sentence should be imposed.] Consequently, you will not concern yourselves with the question of [his] [her] guilt. Give 1b at beginning of penalty proceedings before the jury that found the defendant guilty. PETIT THEFT — SECOND DEGREE — 812.014(3)(a) January 15, 2012 the supreme court Regular News This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1991 [579 So. 2d 75], 1992 [603 So. 2d 1175], 1994 [639 So. 2d 602], 1995 [665 So. 2d 212], 1996 [678 So. 2d 1224], 1997 [690 So. 2d 1263], 1998 [723 So. 2d 123], and 2009 [22 So. 3d 17], and 2012. 11.10(c) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS MOLESTATION § 800.04(5), Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Lewd or Lascivious Molestation, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Give 1a or 1b as applicable. 1. (Victim) a. was 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age. b. was less than 12 years of age. Give 2a or 2b as applicable. 2. (Defendant) , [real property, including things growing on, affixed to and found in land.] [tangible or intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, claims [services.] a. in a lewd or lascivious manner, intentionally in a lewd or lascivious manner touched the [breasts] [genitals] [genital area] [buttocks] [clothing covering the breasts] [clothing covering the genitals] [clothing covering the genital area] [clothing covering the buttocks] of (victim) . Criminal Mischief806.1312.4 GRAND THEFT — THIRD DEGREE (PROPERTY VALUED AT $100 OR MORE BUT LESS THAN $300 AND TAKEN FROM DWELLING)— 812.014(2)(d) CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Petit theft – first degree 812.014(2)(e)14.1 Unnatural and lascivious act800.0211.8 CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Trespass810.08(2)(a)13.3 CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. BURGLARY — 810.02(4) Trespass810.08 (2)(c)13.3 CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Battery784.038.3 FELONY PETIT THEFT — 812.014(3)(c) Burglary810.02(3)13.1 CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Criminal case jury instructions Aggravated assault784.0218.2 Battery784.038.3 Petit theft — second degreeNone812.014(3)(a)14.1 Trespass810.08(2)(b)13.3 None None Assault784.0118.1 Grand theft — third degree812.014(2)(c)1.,2.,3.14.1 Grand theft — third degree812.014(2)(c)1.,2.,3. 14.1 Petit theft — first degree812.014(2)(e)14.1 Trespass810.08(2)(b)13.3 Petit theft – second degree812.014(3)(a)14.1 Give 3a or 3b as applicable. 3. (Defendant) a. was 18 years of age or older at the time of the offense. b. was less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense. Petit theft — second degree812.014(3)(a)14.1 Trespass810.08(2)(a)13.3 Trespass810.08(2)(b)13.3 Trespass810.08(2)(c)13.3 Trade secrets812.081 BURGLARY OF DWELLING; BURGLARY OF STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE WITH HUMAN BEING INSIDE; BURGLARY OF AN AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE — 810.02(3) Comment Petit theft — first degree812.014(2)(e)14.1 Petit theft — second degree812.014(3)(a)14.1 Petit theft – second degree812.014(3)(a)14.1 CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Criminal Mischief806.1312.4 Aggravated battery784.0458.4 This instruction was adopted in 2008 [998 So. 2d 1138] and amended in 2012. 13.1 BURGLARY § 810.02, Fla. Stat. Give if the information or indictment charges entering with the intent to commit an offense: To prove the crime of Burglary, the State must prove the following [two] [three] elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) entered a [structure] [conveyance] owned by or in the possession of (person alleged). 2. At the time of entering the [structure] [conveyance], (defendant) had the intent to commit [(the crime alleged)] [an offense other than burglary or trespass ] [ (the crime alleged) ] in that [structure] [conveyance]. The offense intended cannot be trespass or burglary. Give element 3 only if defendant meets his or her burden of production that he or she had an invitation or license to enter, or that the premises were open to the public. See State v. Hicks, 421 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1982), and State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1983). 3. [ (Defendant) was not [licensed] [invited] to enter the [structure] [conveyance].] [The premises were not open to the public at the time of the entering.] Give if applicable. If the [license] [invitation] to enter was obtained by ( defendant’s) trick or fraud or deceit, then the [license] [invitation] to enter was not valid. Give if applicable. If (defendant) entered premises that were open to the public, but then entered an area of the premises that [he] [she] knew or should have known was not open to the public, (defendant) committed a burglary if [he] [she] entered that non-public area with the intent to commit [ (the crime alleged) ] [an offense other than burglary or trespass ] [ (the crime alleged) ] in that non-public area. Give if applicable. § 810.07 Fla. Stat. You may infer that (defendant) had the intent to commit a crime inside a [structure] [conveyance] if the [entering] [attempted entering] of the [structure] [conveyance] was done stealthily and without the consent of the owner or occupant. Give if applicable. The entry necessary need not be the whole body of the defendant. It is sufficient if the defendant, with the intent to commit a crime, extends any part of [his] [her] body into the [structure] [conveyance]. Give if the information or indictment charges remaining with the intent to commit an offense: To prove the crime of Burglary, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) had permission or consent to enter a [structure] [conveyance] owned by or in the possession of (person alleged). 2. (Defendant) , after entering the [structure] [conveyance], remained therein Give 2a, 2b, or 2c as applicable. a. surreptitiously and with the intent to commit [ (the crime alleged) ] [an offense other than burglary or trespass ] [ (the crime alleged) ] inside the [structure] [conveyance]. b. after permission to remain had been withdrawn and with the intent to commit [ (the crime alleged) ] [an offense other than burglary or trespass ] [ (the crime alleged) ] inside the [structure] [conveyance]. c. with the intent to commit or attempt to commit a [forcible felony] [ (the forcible felony alleged) ] inside the [structure] [conveyance]. PETIT THEFT — FIRST DEGREE – 812.014(3)(b) Degrees. Give as applicable. If you find the defendant guilty of theft, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether: a. [the value of the property taken was $100,000 or more.] b. [the value of the property taken was $20,000 or more but less than $100,000.] c. [the value of the property taken was $10,000 or more but less than $20,000.] d. [the value of the property taken was $5,000 or more but less than $10,000.] e. [the value of the property taken was $300 or more but less than $5,000.] f. [the value of the property taken was $100 or more but less than $300.] g. [the value of the property taken was less than $100.] h. [the property taken was a semitrailer that was deployed by a law enforcement officer.] i. [the property taken was cargo valued at $50,000 or more that has entered the stream of commerce from the shipper’s loading platform to the consignee’s receiving dock.] j. [the property taken was cargo valued at less than $50,000 that has entered the stream of commerce from the shipper’s loading platform to the consignee’s receiving dock.] k. [the property taken was emergency medical equipment valued at $300 or more that was taken from [a licensed facility] [an emergency medical aircraft or vehicle].] l. [the property taken was law enforcement equipment valued at $300 or more that was taken from an authorized emergency vehicle.] m. [ (defendant) , individually or in concert with one or more persons, coordinated the activities of another in committing the theft and the value of the property taken was more than $3,000.] Attempt777.04(1)5.1 b. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have found the defendant guilty of Murder in the First Degree. CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Trespass810.08(2)(a)13.3 § 812.012(6), Fla. Stat. “Services” means anything of value resulting from a person’s physical or mental labor or skill, or from the use, possession, or presence of property, and includes: [repairs or improvements to property.] [professional services.] [private, public or government communication, transportation, power, water, or sanitation services.] [lodging accommodations.] [admissions to places of exhibition or entertainment.] § 812.012(10), Fla. Stat. “Value” means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense, or if that value cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the offense. If the exact value of the property cannot be ascertained, you should attempt to determine a minimum value. If you cannot determine the minimum value, you must find the value is less than $100. Theft of an Instrument. Give if applicable. In the case of a written instrument that does not have a readily ascertainable market value, such as a check, draft, or promissory note, the value is the amount due or collectible. In the case of any other instrument that creates, releases, discharges or otherwise affects any valuable legal right, privilege, or obligation, the value is the greatest amount of economic loss that the owner of the instrument might reasonably suffer by virtue of the loss of the instrument. Theft of a Trade Secret. Give if applicable. The value of a trade secret that does not have a readily ascertainable market value is any reasonable value representing the damage to the owner suffered by reason of losing an advantage over those who do not know of or use the trade secret. Theft Pursuant to One Scheme. Give if applicable. Amounts of value of separate properties involved in thefts committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether the thefts are from the same person or several persons, may be added together to determine the total value of the theft. Lesser Included Offense CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Petit theft – first degree812.014(3)(b)14.1 Definition. Give as applicable. Jacobs v. State, 41 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2010). “Dwelling” means a building [or conveyance] of any kind, whether such building [or conveyance] is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, together with the enclosed space of ground and outbuildings immediately surrounding it. The enclosure need not be continuous and may have an opening for entering and exiting. For purposes of burglary, a “dwelling” includes an attached porch or attached garage. Human being in structure or conveyance. If you find (defendant) guilty of burglary, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether, in the course of committing the burglary, there was another human being in the [structure] [conveyance], at the time [he] [she] [entered] [remained in] the [structure] [conveyance]. Offense intended is theft of a controlled substance. If you find (defendant) guilty of burglary, you must also determine whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense intended to be committed therein was theft of a controlled substance. Pursuant to Florida law, ( name of controlled substance ) is a controlled substance. A theft occurs when a person knowingly and unlawfully obtains or uses or endeavors to obtain or use the property of the victim and does so with the intent to, either temporarily or permanently, deprive the victim of his or her right to the property or any benefit from it or to appropriate the property of the victim to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to it. Dwelling or structure with use of motor vehicle or damage. If you find (defendant) guilty of burglary, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether, in the course of committing the burglary, (defendant) entered a [dwelling] [structure] and 1. used a motor vehicle as an instrumentality, other than merely as a getaway vehicle, to assist in committing the offense, and thereby damaged the [dwelling] [structure]. or 2. caused damage to the [dwelling] [structure] [property within the [dwelling] [structure]], in excess of $1,000. Authorized emergency vehicle. If you find (defendant) guilty of burglary, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether the conveyance [entered] [remained in] was an authorized emergency vehicle. Definition. See § 316.003, Fla. Stat. An “authorized emergency vehicle” is [ a vehicle of the fire department (fire patrol) , or police vehicles, ] [ an d such ambulance s and or emergency vehicle s of [ municipal departments , ] [ public service corporations operated by private corporations , ] [ the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Health, or the Department of Transportation , ] [ and the Department of Corrections ]] that is as are designated or authorized by the ir respective department , or the chief of police of an incorporated city , or any sheriff of a county. State of emergency. The definitions of structure, dwelling, and conveyance are different for counties where a state of emergency has been declared under chapter 252. See § 810.011(1), (2), and (3), Fla. Stat. If you find (defendant) guilty of burglary, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether 1. the burglary was committed within a county that was subject to a state of emergency that had been declared by the governor under chapter 252, the “State Emergency Management Act,” and 2. the perpetration of the burglary was facilitated by conditions arising from the emergency. Definition. The term “conditions arising from the emergency” means civil unrest, power outages, curfews, voluntary or mandatory evacuations, or a reduction in the presence of or response time for first responders or homeland security personnel. § 810.011(4), Fla. Stat. An act is committed “in the course of committing” if it occurs in the attempt to commit the offense or in flight after the attempt or commission. Lesser Included Offenses Attempt777.04(1)5.1 Give if applicable but only in cases of grand theft. § 812.014(2)(a)3, Fla. Stat. If you find the defendant guilty of theft, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether: p. [in the course of committing the theft, (defendant) used a motor vehicle as an instrumentality, other than merely as a getaway vehicle, to assist in committing the theft and thereby damaged the real property of another.] q. [in the course of committing the theft, (defendant) caused more than $1,000 in damage to the [real] [personal] property of another.] State of emergency. Applies only to elements b, c, d, j, k and l above. If you find (defendant) guilty of theft, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether: r. [the theft was committed within a county that was subject to a state of emergency that had been declared by the governor under Chapter 252, the “State Emergency Management Act” and the perpetration of the theft was facilitated by conditions arising from the emergency.] Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current in respect to name, address, place of employment, or other material aspect in connection with the leasing of personal property, or failed to return leased property within 72 hours of the termination of the leasing agreement, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the property was obtained or is now used with unlawful intent to commit theft. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen. § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below the fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen. § 812.022(4), Fla. Stat. Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, out of the regular course of business or without the usual indicia of ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that it had been stolen. § 812.022(5), Fla. Stat. Proof that a dealer who regularly deals in used property possesses stolen property upon which a name and phone number of a person other than the offeror of the property are conspicuously displayed gives rise to an inference that the dealer possessing the property knew or should have known that the property was stolen. § 812.022(6), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person was in possession of a stolen motor vehicle and that the ignition mechanism of the motor vehicle had been bypassed or the steering wheel locking mechanism had been broken or bypassed, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the stolen motor vehicle knew or should have known that the motor vehicle had been stolen. Definitions. Give if applicable. § 316.003, Fla. Stat. “Authorized emergency vehicles” are vehicles of the fire department (fire patrol), police vehicles, and such ambulances and emergency vehicles of municipal departments, public service corporations operated by private corporations, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Health, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Corrections as are designated or authorized by their respective department or the chief of police of an incorporated city or any sheriff of any of the various counties. § 812.012(1), Fla. Stat. “Cargo” means partial or entire shipments, containers, or cartons of property which are contained in or on a trailer, motortruck, aircraft, vessel, warehouse, freight station, freight consolidation facility, or air navigation facility. § 812.014(2), Fla. Stat. “Conditions arising from the emergency” means civil unrest, power outages, curfews, voluntary or mandatory evacuations, or a reduction in the presence of or response time for first responders or homeland security personnel. § 810.011(2), Fla. Stat. “Dwelling” means a building [or conveyance] of any kind, whether such building [or conveyance] is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, together with the enclosed space of ground and outbuildings immediately surrounding it. For purposes of theft, a “dwelling” includes an attached porch or attached garage. § 812.014(2)(b)3, Fla. Stat. “Emergency medical aircraft or vehicle” means any aircraft, ambulance or other vehicle used as an emergency medical service vehicle that has been issued a permit in accordance with Florida law. § 812.014(2)(b)3, Fla. Stat. “Emergency medical equipment” means mechanical or electronic apparatus used to provide emergency service and care or to treat medical emergencies. § 395.002(10), Fla. Stat. “Emergency service and care” means medical screening, examination, and evaluation by a physician, or other medically appropriate personnel under the supervision of a physician, to determine if an emergency medical condition exists, and if it does, the care, treatment, or surgery by a physician necessary to relieve or eliminate the emergency medical condition, within the service capability of the facility. § 812.014(2)(b)4, Fla. Stat., and § 943.10, Fla. Stat. “Law enforcement equipment” means any property, device, or apparatus used by a law enforcement officer in the officer’s official business. A law enforcement officer is any person who is elected, appointed, or employed full time by any municipality or the state or any political subdivision thereof; who is vested with authority to bear arms and make arrests; and whose primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime or the enforcement of the penal, criminal, traffic, or highway laws of the state. This definition includes all certified supervisory and command personnel whose duties include, in whole or in part, the supervision, training, guidance, and management responsibilities of full-time law enforcement officers, part-time law enforcement officers, or auxiliary law enforcement officers but does not include support personnel employed by the employing agency. § 810.09(2)(d), Fla. Stat. If the construction site is greater than one acre in area, see § 810.09(2)(d)1, Fla. Stat., and § 810.011(5)(a), Fla. Stat. A “legally posted construction site” means a construction site of one acre or less in area with a sign prominently placed on the property where the construction permits are located, in letters no less than two inches in height, that reads in substantially the following manner: “THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY.” § 395.002(17), Fla. Stat. “Licensed facility” means a hospital, ambulatory surgical center, or mobile surgical facility licensed by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. See chapter 395, Fla. Stat. § 810.09(1)(b), Fla. Stat. “Unenclosed curtilage” means the unenclosed land or grounds, and any outbuildings, that are directly and intimately adjacent to and connected with the dwelling and necessary, convenient, and habitually used in connection with that dwelling. § 812.012(3), Fla. Stat. “Obtains or uses” means any manner of a. Taking or exercising control over property. b. Making any unauthorized use, disposition, or transfer of property. Attempt777.04(1)5.1 When the compounded offense of burglary with an assault or burglary with a battery is charged and the jury convicts on the lesser included offense of trespass, the jury can also consider a second conviction on the lesser included offenses of assault or battery depending on the crime charged. See Gian-Grasso v. State, 899 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985 [477 So.2d 985], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], 2003 [850 So.2d 1272], and 2008 [986 So. 2d 583], and 2012. It should be given for offenses committed after July 1, 2001. See § 810.02, Fla. Stat. (2002). For guidance on instructions for burglary offenses committed between February 2000 and before July 1, 2001, see State v. Ruiz , 863 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 2003), and Burnes v. State , 861 So.2d 78 (Fla. 2003). 14.1 THEFT § 812.014, Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Theft, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) knowingly and unlawfully [obtained or used] [endeavored to obtain or to use] the (property alleged) of (victim) . 2. [He] [She] did so with intent to, either temporarily or permanently, GRAND THEFT — SECOND DEGREE (PROPERTY VALUED AT $20,000 OR MORE BUT LESS THAN $100,000) — 812.014(2)(b) Grand theft — second degree812.014(2)(b)14.1 Attempt777.04(1)5.1 Trespass810.08 (2)(c)13.3 Petit theft — second degree812.014(3)(a)14.1 GRAND THEFT — THIRD DEGREE (PROPERTY VALUED AT $300 OR MORE BUT LESS THAN $20,000) — 812.014(2)(c) CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Burglary810.02(4)13.1 Trade secrets812.081 b. in a lewd or lascivious manner, intentionally [forced] [enticed] (victim) to touch the [breasts] [genitals] [genital area] [buttocks] [clothing covering the breasts] [clothing covering the genitals] [clothing covering the genital area] [clothing covering the buttocks] of (defendant) . CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. GRAND THEFT – THIRD DEGREE (A MOTOR VEHICLE) — 812.014(2) (c)6 Petit theft — first degree812.014(2)(e)14.1 None Trespass to conveyance810.0813.3 Trade secrets812.081 LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS MOLESTATION — 800.04(5) Assault784.0118.1 None PETIT THEFT — FIRST DEGREE — 812.014(2)(e) For murders committed prior to May 25, 1994, the penalties were different; therefore, for crimes committed before that date, the following instruction should be modified to comply with the statute in effect at the time the crime was committed. If the jury inquires whether the defendant will receive credit for time served against a sentence of life without possibility of parole for 25 years, the court should instruct that the defendant will receive credit for all time served but that there is no guarantee the defendant will be granted parole either upon serving 25 years or subsequently. See Green v. State, 907 So. 2d 489, 496 (Fla. 2005). 2. The punishment for this crime is either death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The final decision as to which punishment shall be imposed rests with the judge of this court; however, the law requires that you, the jury, render to the court an advisory sentence as to which punishment should be imposed upon the defendant. Comment GRAND THEFT — FIRST DEGREE (PROPERTY VALUED AT $100,000 OR MORE) — 812.014(2)(a) Comment a. [deprive (victim) of [his] [her] right to the property or any benefit from it.] b. [appropriate the property of (victim) to [his] [her] own use or to the use of any person not entitled to it.] Definition. The words “lewd” and “lascivious” mean the same thing: and mean a wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual intent on the part of the person doing an act. Neither (victim’s) lack of chastity nor consent is a defense to the crime charged. The defendant’s ignorance of victim’s age, victim’s misrepresentation of [his] [her] age, or the defendant’s bona fide belief of (victim’s) age is not a defense to the crime charged. Lesser Included Offenses Petit theft – second degree812.014(3)(a)14.1 BURGLARY WITH ASSAULT OR BATTERY OR WHILE ARMED OR WITH USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE OR PROPERTY DAMAGE — 810.02(2) Burglary810.02(4)13.1 CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. None The offense intended cannot be trespass or burglary. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08 Fla. Stat. Proof of intent. The intent with which an act is done is an operation of the mind and, therefore, is not always capable of direct and positive proof. It may be established by circumstantial evidence like any other fact in a case. Even though an unlawful [entering] [remaining in] a [structure] [conveyance] is proved, if the evidence does not establish that it was done with the intent to commit [ (the crime alleged) ] [an offense other than burglary or trespass ] [ (the crime alleged) ] , the defendant must be found not guilty of burglary. Proof of possession of stolen property. Proof of possession by an accused of property recently stolen by means of a burglary, unless satisfactorily explained, may justify a conviction of burglary if the circumstances of the burglary and of the possession of the stolen property convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the burglary. Definitions; give as applicable. § 810.011(1), Fla. Stat. ; Jacobs v. State, 41 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2010). “Structure” means any building of any kind, either temporary or permanent, that has a roof over it, and the enclosed space of ground and outbuildings immediately surrounding that structure. The enclosure need not be continuous and may have an opening for entering and exiting. § 810.011(3), Fla. Stat. “Conveyance” means any motor vehicle, ship, vessel, railroad car, trailer, aircraft or sleeping car; and to enter a conveyance includes taking apart any portion of the conveyance. Burglary enhancements: With an assault. If you find (defendant) guilty of burglary, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether, in the course of committing the burglary, (defendant) assaulted any person. An assault is an intentional and unlawful threat, either by word or act, to do violence to another, at a time when the defendant appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat and [his] [her] act created a well-founded fear in the other person that the violence was about to take place. With a battery. If you find (defendant) guilty of burglary, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether, in the course of committing the burglary, (defendant) battered any person. A battery is an actual and intentional touching or striking of another person against that person’s will or the intentional causing of bodily harm to another person. While armed. If you find (defendant) guilty of burglary, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether, in the course of committing the burglary, (defendant) was armed or armed [himself] [herself] within the [structure] [conveyance] with [explosives] [a dangerous weapon]. Definitions. Give as applicable. § 790.001(5), Fla. Stat. See exceptions in § 790.001(5)(a)-(d), Fla. Stat. “Explosive” means any chemical compound or mixture that has the property of yielding readily to combustion or oxidation upon application of heat, flame, or shock, including but not limited to dynamite, nitroglycerin, trinitrotoluene, or ammonium nitrate when combined with other ingredients to form an explosive mixture, blasting caps, and detonators. A “dangerous weapon” is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in which it is used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm. It is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant intended to use or was willing to use the weapon in furtherance of the burglary in order for a weapon to constitute a “dangerous weapon.” To “arm” oneself during the course of a burglary includes possessing a firearm, whether loaded with ammunition or not, at any time during the course of committing the burglary. Structure or conveyance is a dwelling. If you find (defendant) guilty of burglary, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether the [structure] [conveyance] [entered] [remained in] was a dwelling. None CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. c. Obtaining property by fraud, willful misrepresentation of a future act, or false promise. d. Conduct previously known as stealing; larceny; purloining; abstracting; embezzlement; misapplication; misappropriation; conversion; or obtaining money or property by false pretenses, fraud, deception; or other conduct similar in nature. “Endeavor” means to attempt or try. § 812.012(4), Fla. Stat. “Property” means anything of value, and includes: CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1987 [508 So. 2d 1221], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1992 [603 So. 2d 1175], 2003 [850 So. 2d 1272], 2005 [911 So. 2d 766 and 915 So. 2d 609] and 2008.It is error to inform the jury of a prior theft conviction. Therefore, if the information or indictment contains an allegation of one or more prior theft convictions, do not read that allegation and do not send the information or indictment into the jury room. If the defendant is found guilty of a theft, the historical fact of a previous theft conviction shall be determined beyond a reasonable doubt in a bifurcated proceeding. State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691(Fla. 2000). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1987 [508 So. 2d 1221], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1992 [603 So. 2d 1175], 2003 [850 So. 2d 1272], 2005 [911 So. 2d 766 and 915 So. 2d 609], 2008 [986 So. 2d 563], and 2012.
… It’s a practice as old as the mug shot itself: publicizing an unflattering close-up of a person’s face and profile, taken at one of the worst possible moments. In 2018, the San Francisco police began releasing booking photos of people who had been arrested on drug-related charges as a way to show the public they were dealing aggressively with crime, said Jennifer L. Eberhardt, a psychology professor at Stanford University who has studied the correlation between the public’s perception of crime and images of Black people. Many newsrooms have already started removing mug shot galleries, citing the same reasoning. Last month, dozens of outlets once owned by the newspaper chain GateHouse Media said they would stop using slide shows of mug shots that were not part of a news article. Those sites are now run under the banner of Gannett, which merged last year with GateHouse and had already removed mug shot galleries from its sites, said Amalie Nash, USA Today Network vice president for local news and audience development. But those photos disproportionately represented Black and Latino people, who make up a minority of the city’s population, she said. “This policy emerges from compelling research suggesting that the widespread publication of police booking photos in the news and on social media creates an illusory correlation for viewers that fosters racial bias and vastly overstates the propensity of Black and brown men to engage in criminal behavior,” Chief Scott said in a statement. For more than a century, police departments and news organizations have worked together to disseminate photos of people after their arrest, often bleary-eyed and despondent, sometimes defiant and smiling. William Scott, the San Francisco police chief, announced on Wednesday that his department would no longer release mug shots of people who had been arrested unless there was an immediate public safety reason to do so. And in some police departments and newsrooms across the country, it may be on its way out. “Mug shot galleries presented without context may feed into negative stereotypes and, in our editorial judgment, are of limited news value,” Gannett has stated. “If the only faces you’re seeing are of Black and Latino people, it can create this illusion that most Black and Latino people are committing the crimes,” said Professor Eberhardt, who was among the academics, reporters and criminal justice reform supporters with whom Chief Scott consulted before changing his department’s mug shot policy. She added, “You fear the group, not the individual.” Read the whole story: The New York Times More of our Members in the Media >
Though much progress has been made connecting people in malaria-endemic countries with key disease control interventions, significant gaps remain in some regions, with stagnant global funding that could slow progress on driving down the disease threat, according to an annual snapshot of the global malaria battle released today.The assessment is detailed in a 186-page report from the World Health Organization (WHO) that lays out the latest global and regional malaria trends, highlights progress toward global targets, and describes success and challenges in controlling and eliminating the disease.Focus on newly approved goalsAt a media briefing last week to preview the report, Pedro Alonso, MD, PhD, director of the WHO Global Malaria Program, said last year’s report focused on trends and progress over the past decade, and this year’s report looks toward the future and marks a transition to new goals to reduce the disease burden that were approved by the World Health Assembly in 2015.For one of the main goals—eliminating malaria in at least 10 countries by 2020—the outlook is promising, according to the WHO. In 2015, 10 countries or territories reported fewer than 150 endemic malaria cases, and 9 more reported only 150 to 1,000 cases.Progress, though, is lagging on other key targets. The new goal calls for reducing malaria cases 40% by 2020, but according to today’s report, only 40 of 91 countries or territories with active malaria transmission are on track to reach the goal, with progress especially slow in high-disease-burden countries.Progress with interventionsNew findings show that for 2015, about half (51%) of children with fevers who were evaluated at a public health clinic in 22 African countries were tested for malaria, up from 29% in 2010. The report adds that diagnostic testing is a key tool for rapidly detecting and treating the infection.To help protect women in African countries that have moderate to high levels of malaria, the WHO recommends intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, administered at each visit after the first trimester. The strategy is designed to reduce maternal and infant deaths and curb malaria and other complications of malaria during pregnancy.According to the new report, the women who got the recommended three or more IPTp doses in 20 African nations rose to 31%, up steeply from 6% in 2010.In November a WHO study of long-lasting insecticidal nets over 5 years in five countries found that people who slept under them had significantly lower rates of malaria, even when mosquitoes were resistant to pyrethroids, the insecticide used in the nets.Acknowledging gapsDespite the progress, WHO experts said there is still a massive disease burden, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where fragile health systems and complex challenges mean many still don’t have access to the key interventions that have driven down malaria rates in other countries.Richard Cibulskis, PhD, who coordinates the strategy, evidence, and economics unit at the WHO’s Global Malaria Program, said, “We need to understand the reasons behind the gaps.”For example, he said in some larger households, children are least likely to sleep under antimalarial nets, and health officials grapple with finding better ways to educate people. Sometimes the problem is that communities are difficult to reach. “The problems vary by situation and are very complex,” Cibulskis said.An urgent call for fundingGlobal investments for battling malaria spiked between 2000 and 2010 but have dropped since then, the report said. For 2015, the total was $2.9 billion, only 45% of the $6.4 billion milestone for 2010.Alonso said the world is in danger of missing the new malaria goals without adequate funding, which he said must come from both donors and the affected countries.For 2015, malaria-affected countries provided 31% of funding. For the donor portion, the United States was the biggest funder, providing 35% of the total, followed by the United Kingdom.See also:Dec 13 WHO press releaseDec 13 WHO world malaria report for 2016
RJD GalleryThe RJD Gallery in Bridgehampton presents the opening of “Inside OUT: Outside IN” on Saturday, November 9. This exhibition, judged by Dr. Elaine Melotti Schmidt and Didi Menendez, features the finest works selected out of 500 entries.Artists Choose ArtistsThe Parrish Art Museum in Water Mill presents its annual “Artists Choose Artists” exhibit. Seven notable artists jury the exhibit. Each selects two artists based on submissions.Artists include Lillian Ball with Scott Bluedorn and Janet Culbertson, Ralph Gibson with Tria Giovan and Thomas Hoepker, Valerie Jaudon with Janet Goleas and Bastienne Schmidt, Jill Moser with Mary Boochever and Dan Welden, Alexis Rockman with Irina Alimanestianu and Ronald Reed, Lucien Smith with Anne Seelbach and Mark William Wilson, and Allan Wexler with Margaret Garrett and Priscilla Heine.A members’ opening reception will be held on Sunday, November 10, at 11 AM. The show runs through February 23.Fall Art ExhibitThe Southampton Artists Association presents its fall art exhibit on November 6 through 17 at the Levitas Center for the Arts at the Southampton Cultural Center. The opening reception is Friday, November 8, from 4 to 6 PM.Your Worlds PerspectiveYour Worlds Perspective Art Show will be held at Ashawagh Hall in Springs on Saturday, November 9 and Sunday, November 10. A reception will be held on Saturday, from 6 to 10:30 PM. Artists include Renee Gallanti, Miles Partington, Linda Capello, Carly Haffner, Aubrey Grainger, Whitney Hansen, Oliver Peterson, Dennis Bontempo, Michael Heller, Erick Osbaldo Segura, Adam Baranello, Francisco Aliotta, Andrea Karolina Japa, Alyssa Monique, Trish Franey, Keith Douglas, Christopher W. Clarke, Joe Denny, Sebastian Frouein, Rosa Hanna Scott, Jaime Velez, and many more.Marie DiSunnoThe Amagansett Free Library presents an artist reception for Marie DiSunno Lombardi on Sunday, November 10, at 2 PM.“Like my parents, I have lived here my entire life. My dad was born in Amagansett and my mom grew up in East Hampton. The inspiration for my paintings is often a reflection of growing up in this small community and being surrounded by its beaches and wetlands, while others are a product of my imagination. I’ve been told my paintings are happy. Isn’t that what life is all about?” said the artist.Lydie EgosiOn Friday, November 8, at 5:30 PM, Temple Adas Israel in Sag Harbor will host an art opening with wine and cheese reception featuring the work of the late and prominent Sag Harbor-based artist, Lydie Egosi. All are welcome to attend. Shabbat services will follow at 6 PM.email@example.com Share
Subscribe Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270.
Subscribe Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270.
That is, ensuring that developments in floodplains can survive the sort of floods that devastated 60,000 homes and businesses this time last year. Two reports published this week – one that the government commissioned from Sir Michael Pitt and the other from the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), an organisation whose expertise Pitt drew on heavily – have produced an eminently sensible set of proposals to ensure flood-proofing is at the front of developers’ minds. For example, the 2010 overhaul of the Building Regulations could make homes more resilient to flooding with measures that housebuilders can accommodate without too much extra cost. Pitt says the regulations should apply to home refurbishments, too – as we know, most people who have been flooded don’t make their homes more resilient afterwards, so that’s another good recommendation.One key step would be to remove the right to connect to existing drainage systems, which would force developers to consider using sustainable urban drainage in their projects – that is, ponds and permeable paving that retain water rather than shedding it into drains (which is what happened at Hull).The government has already given the Environment Agency overall responsibility for flood-risk strategy, and has made councils manage the risk from run-off. The ICE would argue the lack of measures for tackling coastal flooding – probably the biggest risk the UK faces in the long term – is a terrible oversight and before long the government will have to invest large sums of cash here. On the whole, though, it feels like coherent action is on the way. Everything depends on the councils. It is their planners, building control inspectors and drainage experts who will staff the new regimeBut everything depends on the councils. It is their planners, building control inspectors and drainage experts who will staff the new regime. That’s a lot of extra expertise needed, and it has to be funded from somewhere. The last thing developers need – particularly at this time – is more bottlenecks in the system. London belongs to usLast Saturday, Exhibition Road in South Kensington closed to traffic, and architecture aficionados, popular music buffs, chirpy children and bewildered passers-by thronged through it by the thousands. This was the launch of the month-long London Festival of Architecture, and it lived up to its name with verve. Artful temporary pavilions purpose-designed for the occasion byFoster + Partners (in raspberry pink) and Tonkin Liu (in banana yellow) mingled with street bands, all of them performing simultaneously. So, congratulations to Peter Murray, who has done more than anyone to find a way for the public to engage joyfully with the city around them.
The president of the family division has advised local authorities to think long and hard before embarking on care proceedings against ‘otherwise unimpeachable’ parents. Sir James Munby, in In the matter of AB (A Child), granted a local authority permission to withdraw a care order application in relation to a four-year-old boy, who is profoundly neurologically disabled with a life-limiting condition. In September 2016, AB was discharged from hospital to the care of his parents, described as devoted to their children. The local authority issued care proceedings in February 2017, alleging that the parents’ lack of cooperation and repeated allegations about the carers made it impossible to implement a package of support. Two months later, His Honour Judge Tolson made a care order. However, Tolson granted the parents permission to appeal, staying the care order.In September 2017, Munby was informed that the local authority no longer wanted to remove AB from his parents following evidence that the current support package was working satisfactorily. Munby granted the local authority permission to withdraw proceedings. The order states that no adverse findings were made in respect of the parenting given to AB by his parents, their care of him and their adherence to the ‘symptom management plan’. The local authority and the parents were also committed to working together.However, Munby used his judgment, published yesterday, to advise local authorities ‘to think long and hard before embarking upon care proceedings against otherwise unimpeachable parents who may justifiably resent recourse to what they are likely to see as an unnecessarily adversarial and punitive remedy’.When considering care proceedings to remove a child from the parents, Munby said local authorities must consider ‘not merely about the practicalities of finding an appropriate placement, whether institutional or in a specialised foster placement, but also about the practicalities of ensuring that the parents have proper contact with their child during what may be its last few months or weeks of life. And by proper contact I do not mean contact two or three times a week for a couple of hours a time if the parents reasonably want more, even much more’.It would be ‘unbearable’ to contemplate the parents’ reaction if they were unable to be with their child at the moment of death ‘because of geography or, even worse, bureaucracy’, Munby said.Having requested updates about AB, Munby was ‘delighted’ to hear from AB’s parents that he remained stable and largely comfortable at home. ‘They also sent me, for which I am grateful, a heart-warming photograph of the family by the Christmas tree,’ his judgment concludes.
ANALYSIS: Conte says no, but Salvini says yes. This sums up the Italian media’s view of the conflict at the heart of the new ‘yellow and green’ government in Roma over the future of the Lyon – Torino trans-Alpine railway, writes Christian Scasso.A coalition of the radical Five Star Movement and the League took office in May, and already the attitude of the two parties towards infrastructure investment is emerging as a key fault line, with the planned 235 km railway between Torino and Lyon the principal battleground. The new line, which includes the 57 km cross-border Mont Cenis base tunnel, has an indicative budget of €8·3bn.The League, which has its roots in prosperous northern Italy, has always backed the Lyon – Torino project, but M5S is strongly opposed, arguing that ‘Italy should not be throwing its money out of the window’ and promising to ‘focus on improving the daily life of Italians’.What started out as furtive rumours about discord over the railway has escalated in recent weeks to an increasingly public spat, with Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and his M5S colleagues on one side and high-profile Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, leader of the League, on the other. Caught in the middle are regional leaders in Piemonte and Lombardia which stand to benefit from the enhanced rail connectivity the line would provide. Lombardia Regional President Sergio Chiamparino has backed Salvini unequivocally, even suggesting that were the work to be halted, a local plebiscite could be held to restart it. ‘If the project were to be cancelled, it would be a fatal blow to the cultural, economic, environmental and social development of our region’, he told local press.Toninelli talks toughNevertheless, national transport and infrastructure minister Danilo Toninelli, an M5S member, has been hardening his opposition since his appointment in June, and the decision to replace the management board of national railway holding company FS Group could be seen as an ominous portent. Toninelli has reportedly claimed that the price tag for the Italian section of the line is €60m per km, three times the claimed cost of a high speed line in France. Aligning himself closely with the ‘No TAV’ campaign group which has fought a bitter campaign against the construction work on the Italian approaches to the tunnel, Toninelli has reportedly questioned what the motives might be for allowing such a perceived cost disparity to arise, and who might benefit from it.For the time being, Toninelli says he is keen to have ‘in his hands the firm data on the technical and financial aspects of the project’ before taking any decisions. Yet according to insiders, he has refused on five separate occasions to meet the government’s own Special Commissioner for Lyon – Torino, Paolo Foietta, who is keen to present him with a formal dossier on progress to date. While the minister has reportedly said that it is ‘useless’ to have meetings that ‘only put forward the case for the project’, Foietta has made clear in the local press that the railway is comparable in cost and scope to the Gotthard and Brenner base tunnels in Switzerland and Austria, which are recently completed and under construction respectively.International pressureWhile the discord between the two governing parties over Lyon – Torino has not yet unleashed a full-scale political crisis, the international nature of the project is adding to the pressure. There is already a strained relationship at a political level between Italy and the French government of Emmanuel Macron, while the EU, of which M5S is a vociferous critic, is an important financial backer of the project. EU funds are expected to meet 41% of the total cost with the remainder being split between Italy (58%) and France (42%).Four inter-governmental agreements covering the proposed railway were signed between 1996 and 2015, before a formal accord was ratified by both parliaments at the end of 2016. While overall construction remains at an early stage, substantial progress has nevertheless been made, with around €1bn of feasibility studies, design work and test bores having been undertaken. Three test bores have been completed on the French side, totalling 8·6 km, and 7·5 km has been completed in Italy, while excavation of a gallery 9 km in length has been underway at Saint-Martin la Porte in France since January 2015. Estimates suggest that cancellation of the project at this stage could cost €2bn and put 4 000 jobs at risk, with Italian contractors particularly affected. ‘We must remember that this railway is not only important for the two countries directly affected, but for the whole of Europe’, says Enrico Brivio, a spokesman for the European Commission’s transport directorate DG Move. ‘It is important that the project is taken forward on time and in a financially responsible way.’