Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

483 So. 2d 428

483 So.2d 428

11 Fla.L.Weekly 59

Standard Jury Instructions

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided February 13, 1986

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1986-02-13

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““All persons are presumed to be sane. However, if the evidence causes you to have a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s sanity, then the presumption of sanity vanishes and the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 534 So. 2d 1228 - Finch v. State, Matevia v. State

Relies on 201 So. 2d 706 - Cirack v. State · 476 So. 2d 123 - Yohn v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-02-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2017

7 state decisions

401986199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1In Yohn v. State, 476 So.2d 123 (Fla.1985), we held standard criminal jury instruction 3.04(b) to be legally incorrect with respect to the state’s burden of proof concerning insanity. We requested the Committee on Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases to submit a revised instruction. It has done so.* We approve its publication.

¶2It is so ordered.

ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

¶3* 3.04(b) INSANITY

¶4*429An issue in this case is whether (defendant) was insane when the crime allegedly was committed.

¶5A person is considered to be insane when:

1. He had a mental infirmity, disease or defect.
2. Because of this condition
a. he did not know what he was doing or its consequences or
b. although he knew what he was doing and its consequences, he did not know it was wrong.

¶6All persons are presumed to be sane. However, if the evidence causes you to have a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s sanity, then the presumption of sanity vanishes and the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane.

¶7In determining the issue of insanity, you may consider the testimony of expert and nonexpert witnesses. The question you must answer is not whether the defendant is insane today, or has ever been insane, but simply if the defendant was insane at the time the crime was allegedly committed.

¶8Give if applicable

¶9Unrestrained passion or ungovernable temper is not insanity, even though the normal judgment of the person be overcome by passion or temper.

¶10Give if applicable

¶11If the evidence establishes that the defendant had been adjudged insane by a court, and has not been judicially restored to legal sanity, then you should assume the defendant was insane at the time of commission of the alleged crime, unless the evidence convinces you otherwise.

¶12If you find that (defendant) committed the crime but have a reasonable doubt that he was sane at that time, then you should find him not guilty by reason of insanity.

¶13If your verdict is that the defendant is not guilty because insane, that does not necessarily mean he will be released from custody. I can conduct additional proceedings to determine if he should be committed to a mental hospital, or given other treatment.

¶14Note to judge

¶15If drugs or alcohol are involved, see Cirack v. State, 201 So.2d 706 (Fla.1967).

¶16 The new 3.04(b) is appended to this opinion.

/483/so2d/428 · .json · Public domain