In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases – Report No. 2013-06 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •           Supreme Court of Florida
    ____________
    No. SC13-1914
    ____________
    IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—
    REPORT NO. 2013-06.
    [August 28, 2014]
    CORRECTED OPINION
    PER CURIAM.
    The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal
    Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to the standard jury
    instructions and asks that the Court authorize the amended standard instructions for
    publication and use. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
    Following publication of its proposals in The Florida Bar News, the
    Committee filed its report with the Court. The Committee proposes amending the
    following jury instructions: 6.1 (Introduction to Attempted Homicide); 11.14,
    11.14(a)-(g) (Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply with Registration
    Requirements); 11.15, 11.15(a) (Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator);
    11.15(b)-(k) (Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply with Registration
    Requirements); and 22.15 ([Manufacturing] [Owning] [Storing] [Keeping]
    [Possession of] [Permitting the Operation of] [Selling] [Leasing] [Transporting] a
    Slot Machine). In addition, the Committee proposes the following new jury
    instructions: 10.20 ([Care] [Custody] [Possession] [Control] of [A Firearm]
    [Ammunition] While a Final Injunction for [Domestic Violence] [Stalking]
    [Cyberstalking] is in Effect); 10.21 (Improper Exhibition of a [Weapon] [Firearm]
    [At a School-Sponsored Event] [On School Property] [On a School Bus] [At a
    School Bus Stop] [Within 1,000 Feet of a School]); 11.19 (Sexual Misconduct
    Between Detention Facility Employees and Inmates); and 20.20 (Mortgage Fraud).
    One comment was received by the Committee with respect to the Failure to
    Register instructions, and three comments were received with respect to the Slot
    Machine proposal. Upon review of the comments, the Committee made minor
    changes to the Slot Machine proposal that did not warrant republication. The
    Court did not publish the proposals after they were filed.
    Having considered the Committee’s report and the comments submitted to
    the Committee, we amend the standard jury instructions as proposed by the
    Committee except as noted otherwise, and authorize the amended jury instructions
    for publication and use.
    New standard jury instruction 11.19 (Sexual Misconduct Between Detention
    Facility Employees and Inmates) is authorized as proposed except that the citations
    for the definitions of “County detention facility,” “County residential probation
    -2-
    center,” and “Municipal detention facility,” are revised to reference the correct
    statutes. In addition, the definition of “Municipal detention facility” is revised to
    include in pertinent part, “a violation of municipal laws or ordinances.”
    The new and amended instructions, as set forth in the appendix to this
    opinion, are hereby authorized for publication and use.1 New language is indicated
    by underlining, and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type. In
    authorizing the publication and use of these instructions, we express no opinion on
    their correctness and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses
    neither requesting additional or alternative instructions nor contesting the legal
    correctness of the instructions. We further caution all interested parties that any
    comments associated with the instructions reflect only the opinion of the
    Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their
    correctness or applicability. The instructions as set forth in the appendix shall be
    effective when this opinion becomes final.
    It is so ordered.
    LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON,
    and PERRY, JJ., concur.
    1. The amendments as reflected in the appendix are to the Criminal Jury
    Instructions as they appear on the Court’s website at www.floridasupremecourt.org
    /jury_instructions/instructions.shtml. We recognize that there may be minor
    discrepancies between the instructions as they appear on the website and the
    published versions of the instructions. Any discrepancies as to instructions
    authorized for publication and use after October 25, 2007, should be resolved by
    reference to the published opinion of this Court authorizing the instruction.
    -3-
    THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE
    EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
    Original Proceedings – Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in
    Criminal Cases
    Judge Jerri Lynn Collins, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury
    Instructions in Criminal Cases, Sanford, Florida, and Judge Joseph Anthony
    Bulone, Past Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in
    Criminal Cases, Clearwater, Florida, and Bart Schneider, Senior Attorney, Office
    of the States Court Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida,
    for Petitioner
    -4-
    APPENDIX
    6.1 INTRODUCTION TO ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE
    Read in all attempted murder and attempted manslaughter by act cases.
    In this case (defendant) is accused of (crime charged).
    Give degrees as applicable.
    Attempted murder in the first degree includes the lesser crimes of
    attempted murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the third
    degree, and attempted voluntary manslaughter by act, all of which are forms
    of attempted homicide and all of which are unlawful.
    An attempted killing homicide that is excusable or was committed by
    the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.
    If you find that there was an attempted killing homicide of (victim) by
    (defendant), you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the
    attempted killing homicide in deciding if whether it was attempted first degree
    murder, or attempted second degree murder, or attempted third degree
    murder, or attempted voluntary manslaughter by act, or whether the
    attempted killing homicide was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of
    deadly force.
    JUSTIFIABLE ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE
    The An attempted killing homicide of a human being is justifiable and
    lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a
    felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in
    which the defendant was at the time of the attempted killing homicide.
    EXCUSABLE ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE
    The An attempted killing homicide of a human being is excusable and
    therefore lawful under any one of the three following circumstances:
    1.    When the attempted killing homicide is committed by accident
    and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with
    usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
    -5-
    2.    When the attempted killing homicide occurs by accident and
    misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient
    provocation, or
    3.    When the attempted killing homicide is committed by accident
    and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous
    weapon is not used and the attempted killing is not done in a cruel
    and unusual manner.
    Definition
    “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.
    I now instruct you on the circumstances that must be proved before
    defendant may be found guilty of [attempted first degree murder] [or]
    [attempted second degree murder] [or] attempted manslaughter by act or any
    lesser included crime.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 1994 and amended in 2014.
    10.20 [CARE] [CUSTODY] [POSSESSION] [CONTROL] OF [A FIREARM]
    [AMMUNITION] WHILE A FINAL INJUNCTION FOR [DOMESTIC
    VIOLENCE] [STALKING] [CYBERSTALKING] IS IN EFFECT
    § 790.233(1), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the
    following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    1.    A judge issued a final injunction for protection against [domestic
    violence] [stalking] [cyberstalking] against (defendant).
    2.    The final injunction had been served upon (defendant) or
    (defendant) had acknowledged receipt.
    3.    While the final injunction was in force and effect, (defendant) had
    [ammunition] [a firearm] in [his] [her] care, custody, possession,
    or control.
    -6-
    Definitions. Give as applicable.
    
    Fla. Stat. § 790.001
    (6).
    “Firearm” means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is
    designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of
    an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any firearm muffler
    or firearm silencer; any destructive device; any machine gun. [The term
    “firearm” does not include an antique firearm unless the antique firearm is
    used in the commission of a crime.] See 
    Fla. Stat. § 790.001
    (1) for the definition
    of antique firearm.
    
    Fla. Stat. § 790.001
    (4)
    “Destructive device” means any bomb, grenade, mine, rocket, missile,
    pipebomb, or similar device containing an explosive, incendiary, or poison gas
    and includes any frangible container filled with an explosive, incendiary,
    explosive gas, or expanding gas, which is designed or so constructed as to
    explode by such filler and is capable of causing bodily harm or property
    damage; any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in
    converting any device into a destructive device and from which a destructive
    device may be readily assembled; any device declared a destructive device by
    the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; any type of weapon which
    will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the
    action of any explosive and which has a barrel with a bore of one-half inch or
    more in diameter; and ammunition for such destructive devices, but not
    including shotgun shells or any other ammunition designed for use in a
    firearm other than a destructive device.
    “Destructive device” does not include:
    a. A device which is not designed, redesigned, used, or intended for
    use as a weapon;
    b. Any device, although originally designed as a weapon, which is
    redesigned so that it may be used solely as a signaling, line-
    throwing, safety, or similar device;
    c. Any shotgun other than a short-barreled shotgun; or
    d. Any nonautomatic rifle (other than a short-barreled rifle)
    generally recognized or particularly suitable for use for the
    hunting of big game.
    -7-
    
    Fla. Stat. § 790.001
    (19)
    “Ammunition” means an object consisting of all of the following:
    a. A fixed metallic or nonmetallic hull or casing containing a primer;
    b. One or more projectiles, one or more bullets, or shot;
    c. Gunpowder.
    “Care” and “custody” mean immediate charge and control exercised by
    a person over the named item. The terms care, custody, and control may be
    used interchangeably.
    Possession.
    There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and
    constructive possession.
    Actual possession.
    Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the
    object and
    a. the object is in the hand of or on the person, or
    b. the object is in a container in the hand of or on the person,
    or
    c. the object is so close as to be within ready reach and is
    under the control of the person.
    Constructive possession.
    Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of
    the object, the object is in a place over which the person has control, and the
    person has the ability to control the object.
    Give if applicable.
    Mere proximity to an object is not sufficient to establish control over
    that object when the object is in a place that the person does not control.
    Give if applicable.
    In order to establish constructive possession of an object that was in a
    place (defendant) did not control, the State must prove (defendant) (1) knew
    that the object was within [his] [her] presence and (2) exercised control or
    ownership over the object itself.
    -8-
    Joint possession.
    Possession may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be
    aware of the presence of an object and may jointly exercise control over it. In
    that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that object.
    Inferences.
    Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 
    88 So. 3d 1060
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2012);
    Meme v. State, 
    72 So. 3d 254
     (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
    If you find that (defendant):
    a. had direct physical custody of the [ammunition] [firearm], or
    b. was within ready reach of the [ammunition] [ firearm] and the
    [ammunition] [firearm] was under [his] [her] control, or
    c. had exclusive control of the place where the [ammunition] [firearm]
    was located, you may infer that [he] [she] was aware of the presence
    of the [ammunition] [ firearm] and had the ability to control [it]
    [them].
    you may infer that [he] [she] was aware of the presence of the
    [ammunition] [ firearm] and had the ability to control [it] [them].
    If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where
    [ammunition] [a firearm] was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had
    knowledge of the presence of the [ammunition] [firearm] or the ability to
    control [it] [them], in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
    Give if applicable. Duncan v. State, 
    986 So. 2d 653
     (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
    However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the
    [ammunition] [firearm] and had the ability to control [it] [them] if [he] [she]
    had joint control over the place where the [ammunition] [firearm]was located,
    and the [ammunition] [firearm]was located in a common area in plain view
    and in the presence of the defendant.
    -9-
    Lesser Included Offenses
    [CARE] [CUSTODY] [POSSESSION] [CONTROL] OF [A FIREARM]
    [AMMUNITION] WHILE A FINAL INJUNCTION FOR [DOMESTIC
    VIOLENCE] [STALKING] [CYBERSTALKING] IS IN EFFECT
    790.233(1)
    CATEGORY ONE      CATEGORY TWO     FLA. STAT. INS. NO.
    None
    Attempt          777.04(1)    5.1
    Comment
    This crime does not apply to a state or local officer as defined in Fla. Stat.
    943.10(14), holding an active certification, who received or possessed a firearm or
    ammunition for use in performing official duties on behalf of the officer’s
    employing agency, unless otherwise prohibited by the employing agency.
    This instruction was adopted in 2014.
    10.21 IMPROPER EXHIBITION OF A [WEAPON] [FIREARM]
    [AT A SCHOOL-SPONSORED EVENT] [ON SCHOOL PROPERTY]
    [ON A SCHOOL BUS] [AT A SCHOOL BUS STOP]
    [WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF A SCHOOL]
    § 790.115(1), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Improper Exhibition of a [Weapon] [Firearm]
    [Sword] [Sword Cane] [Electric Weapon or Device] [Destructive Device] [at]
    [on] [within] [(insert prohibited place in Fla. Stat. 790.115(1))], the State must
    prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
    1. (Defendant) had or carried a[n] [weapon] [firearm] [sword] [sword
    cane] [electric weapon or device] [destructive device].
    2. (Defendant) exhibited the [weapon] [firearm] [sword] [sword cane]
    [electric weapon or device] [destructive device] in a rude, careless,
    angry, or threatening manner.
    3. (Defendant) did so in the presence of one or more persons.
    4. At the time, (defendant) was [at a school-sponsored event] [on the
    grounds [or facilities] of a [school] [school bus]] [school bus stop]]
    - 10 -
    [within 1,000 feet of the real property that compromises a [public or
    private elementary school] [middle school] [secondary school] during
    school hours [or during the time of a sanctioned school activity].
    Self-defense.
    If you find that the defendant exhibited the [weapon] [firearm] [sword]
    [sword cane] [electric weapon or device] [destructive device] in necessary self-
    defense, you must find the defendant not guilty. Read instructions 3.6(f) and/or
    3.6(g) as applicable.
    Definitions. Give as applicable.
    § 790.001(13) and § 790.115(1), Fla. Stats.
    “Weapon” means any dirk, knife, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie,
    tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, razor blade, box cutter, common
    pocketknife, box cutter, or a deadly weapon, except a plastic knife or blunt-
    bladed table knife.
    R.R. v. State, 
    826 So. 2d 465
     (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Cook v. Crosby, 
    914 So. 2d 490
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
    A “deadly weapon” is any instrument which will likely cause death or
    great bodily harm when used in the ordinary and usual manner contemplated
    by its design and construction. An object can be a deadly weapon if its sole
    modern use is to cause great bodily harm. An object not designed for use as a
    weapon may nonetheless be a deadly weapon if its use, intended use, or
    threatened use by the defendant was in a manner likely to inflict death or
    great bodily harm.
    § 790.001(6), Fla. Stat.
    “Firearm” means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is
    designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of
    an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any firearm muffler
    or firearm silencer; any destructive device; any machine gun. [The term
    “firearm” does not include an antique firearm unless the antique firearm is
    used in the commission of a crime.] The definition of “antique firearm is in 
    Fla. Stat. § 790.001
    (1).
    § 790.001(14), Fla. Stat.
    “Electric weapon or device” means any device which, through the
    application or use of electrical current, is designed, redesigned, used, or
    intended to be used for offensive or defensive purposes, the destruction of life,
    or the infliction of injury.
    - 11 -
    See § 790.001(4), Fla. Stat. for the definition of “destructive device.”
    Lesser Included Offenses
    IMPROPER EXHIBITION OF A [WEAPON] [FIREARM] AT
    SCHOOL – 790.115(1)
    CATEGORY ONE           CATEGORY TWO        FLA. STAT. INS. NO.
    Improper Exhibition of                     790.10     10.5
    a Weapon or Firearm
    (except if the weapon
    is a closed common
    pocketknife)
    Attempt             777.04(1)  5.1
    Assault             784.011    8.1
    Comments
    The statute has an exception if the exhibition of the weapon or firearm was
    authorized and in support of school-sanctioned activities. See § 790.115(1), Fla.
    Stat.
    This crime does not apply if the exhibition of the weapon or firearm was on
    private real property, within 1,000 feet of a school, by the owner of the property or
    by a person who had been authorized, licensed, or invited by the owner to be on
    the property. See § 790.115(1), Fla. Stat.
    This crime does not apply if the defendant was a law enforcement officer as
    defined in § 943.10(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), or (14), Fla. Stat. See
    § 790.115(3), Fla. Stat.
    This instruction was adopted in 2014.
    11.14 FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Initially Register, Report, or Provide Registration Items)
    § 943.0435(2)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Offender to
    Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following
    three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    - 12 -
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a. is a sexual offender.
    b.   has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual offender status an element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary,
    or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    Give 3a, 3b, 3c, or 3d as applicable.
    3. (Defendant)
    a.   knowingly failed to register in person at an office of the
    sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours after
    establishing permanent, temporary, or transient residence
    within this state.
    b.   knowingly failed to report in person at an office of the
    sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours after
    being released from the [custody, control, or supervision of
    the Florida Department of Corrections] [custody of a
    private correctional facility].
    c.   knowingly failed to register in person at an office of the
    sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours after
    having been convicted by a court in that county of an
    offense requiring registration.
    - 13 -
    d.   knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name
    of county) County with [his] [her] [(name the single
    unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the statute)]
    [any one or more of the following items: [his] [her] (name
    the unprovided registration items charged, as worded in the
    statute).]
    Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a physical
    residential address.
    The defendant shall provide a physical residential address. A post office
    box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply but was
    misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by the office of the
    sheriff.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise
    prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you
    should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert
    appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed
    [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should
    - 14 -
    find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent
    [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should
    find (defendant) guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have been proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the
    issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or otherwise
    prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you
    should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So.2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ], and2013 [
    113 So. 3d 754
    ], and 2014.
    11.14(a) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEXUAL OFFENDER BY A
    SEXUAL OFFENDER TO COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION
    REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Comply with Registration of a Residence, Motor Vehicle, Trailer,
    Mobile Home, Manufactured Home, Vessel, or Houseboat)
    § 943.0435(2)(b)1, Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Offender by a
    Sexual Offender to Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must
    prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual offender.
    - 15 -
    b.     has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary,
    or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    Give 3a or 3b as applicable.
    3. (Defendant)
    a.   uses as [his] [her] place of residence a [motor vehicle]
    [trailer] [mobile home] [manufactured home];
    and
    knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name
    of county) County with [the (name the single unprovided
    registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or
    more of the following items: (name the unprovided
    registration items charged, as worded in the statute)] of the
    [motor vehicle] [trailer] [mobile home] [manufactured
    home] where [he] [she] resides.
    b.   uses as [his] [her] place of residence a [vessel] [live-aboard
    vessel] [houseboat];
    and
    knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name
    of county) County with [the (name the single unprovided
    registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or
    more of the following items: (name the unprovided
    registration items charged, as worded in the statute] of the
    - 16 -
    [vessel] [live-aboard vessel] [houseboat] where [he] [she]
    resides.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the office of the sheriff.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise
    prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you
    should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert
    appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed
    [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent
    [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should
    find (defendant) guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been
    proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt
    - 17 -
    on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So.2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ] and 2014.
    11.14(b) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEXUAL OFFENDER BY A
    SEXUAL OFFENDER TO COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION
    REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Comply with Registration of Employment or
    Enrollment at an Institution of Higher Learning)
    § 943.0435(2)(b)2, Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply with
    Registration Requirements as a Sexual Offender, the State must prove the
    following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.    is a sexual offender.
    b.    has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    - 18 -
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary,
    or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    Give 3a or 3b as applicable.
    3. (Defendant)
    a.    [is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at
    an institution of higher education in this state, and
    knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name
    of county) County with [(the name the single unprovided
    registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or
    more the following items: (name the unprovided registration
    items charged, as worded in the statute).]
    b.    [is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at
    an institution of higher education in this state.
    undertook a change in [his] [her] enrollment or employment
    status, and
    knowingly failed to report this change in person at an office
    of the sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours
    after the change.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the office of the sheriff.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from complying with registration requirements, and the case law is
    silent as to (1) which party bears the burden of persuasion of the affirmative
    defense and (2) the standard for the burden of persuasion. Under the common law,
    - 19 -
    defendants had both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion on an
    affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise
    prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you
    should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert
    appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed
    [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent
    [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been
    proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt
    on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So.2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ] and 2014.
    - 20 -
    11.14(c) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.
    (Failure to Report to Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles)
    § 943.0435(3), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply with
    Registration Requirements as a Sexual Offender, the State must prove the
    following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual offender.
    b.   has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary,
    or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    Give 3a or 3b as applicable.
    3. (Defendant)
    a.   having registered as a sexual offender with an office of the
    sheriff of (name of county) County,
    knowingly failed to report in person to a driver’s license
    office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor
    Vehicles within 48 hours after registering to present proof
    of this registration, and
    - 21 -
    knowingly failed to [secure a Florida driver’s license]
    [renew [his] [her] Florida driver’s license] [secure a Florida
    identification card].
    b.   reported in person to a driver’s license office of the
    Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and
    [secured a Florida driver’s license] [renewed [his] [her]
    Florida driver’s license] [secured a Florida identification
    card], but in doing so,
    Give one or both of the following as applicable to the charge.
    i.   failed to report to that office that [he] [she] was a
    sexual offender.
    ii.   failed to provide that office with [(name the single
    unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the
    statute)] [any one or more of the following items:
    (name the unprovided registration items charged, as
    worded in the statute)].
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from complying, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    - 22 -
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
    misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying
    with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. If
    the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the
    Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles misinformed [him] [her]
    or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him]
    [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a
    reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles did not misinform
    (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying with the
    registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the
    elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the
    Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles misinformed (defendant)
    or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So.2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ] and 2014.
    - 23 -
    11.14(d) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Report Change of Name or Address within the State or
    Jurisdiction)
    § 943.0435(4), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Offender to
    Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following
    three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual offender.
    b.   has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary,
    or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    Give 3a or 3b, or 3c or 3d as applicable.
    3. (Defendant)
    a.   knowingly failed to report in person to a driver’s license
    office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor
    Vehicles,
    Give i, ii, or iii as applicable.
    i.     when [his] [her] [driver’s license] [identification card]
    was subject to renewal.
    - 24 -
    ii.    within 48 hours after any change in [his] [her]
    permanent, temporary, or transient residence.
    iii.   within 48 hours after any change in [his] [her] name
    by reason of [marriage] [(specify other legal process)].
    b.   knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the
    sheriff of (name of county) County, within 48 hours of
    vacating [his] [her] permanent residence and failing to
    [establish] [maintain] another [permanent] [temporary]
    [transient] residence.
    c.   knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the
    sheriff of (name of county) County that [he] [she] remained
    at [his] [her] permanent residence, within 48 hours after
    [he] [she] reported to the sheriff [his] [her] intent to vacate
    [his] [her] permanent residence.
    d.   reported to
    Give i or ii as applicable.
    i.     an office of the sheriff of (name of county) County
    ii.    a driver’s license office of the Department of Highway
    Safety and Motor Vehicles
    and
    Give iii or iv as applicable.
    iii. knowingly failed to provide that office with (name the
    single unprovided registration item charged, as worded in
    the statute).
    iv.    knowingly failed to provide that office with any one or
    more of the following items: (name the unprovided
    registration items charged, as worded in the statute).
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    - 25 -
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles].
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and
    Motor Vehicles] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her]
    from complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him]
    [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the[office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and
    Motor Vehicles] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her]
    from complying, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the
    charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] did
    not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from
    complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her]
    guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a
    reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of
    whether the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and Motor
    Vehicles] misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from
    - 26 -
    complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not
    guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So.2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ] and 2014.
    11.14(e) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Report Change of Residence to Another State or Jurisdiction)
    § 943.0435(7), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Report Change of Address as by a
    Sexual Offender to Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must
    prove the following [four] [five] elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual offender.
    b.   has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender”
    or “convicted.”
    - 27 -
    2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary,
    or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    3. (Defendant) intended to leave this State to establish residence in
    another state or jurisdiction on (date).
    Give element 4 or 5, or both, as applicable.
    4. (Defendant) knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the
    sheriff in the county of [his] [her] current residence within 48
    hours before the date on which [he] [she] intended to leave this
    state to establish residence in another state or jurisdiction.
    5. (Defendant) knowingly failed to provide the address, municipality,
    county, and state of [his] [her] intended address, when [he] [she]
    reported to the sheriff’s office of the county of [his] [her] current
    residence [his] [her] intention to establish residence in another
    state or jurisdiction.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the office of the sheriff.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise
    - 28 -
    prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you
    should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert
    appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed
    [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent
    [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been
    proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt
    on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So.2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ] and 2014.
    11.14(f) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Report Intent to Remain within the State or Jurisdiction)
    § 943.0435(8), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Offender to
    Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following
    five elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    - 29 -
    a.   is a sexual offender.
    b.   has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary,
    or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    3. (Defendant) indicated to an office of the sheriff of (name of county)
    County [his] [her] intent to leave this state on (date of intended
    departure) and establish a permanent, temporary, or transient
    residence in another state or jurisdiction.
    4. (Defendant) later decided to remain in this state.
    5. Within 48 hours after the date of [his] [her] originally intended
    departure from this state, (defendant) knowingly failed to report to
    an office of the sheriff of (name of county) County that [he] [she]
    instead decided to remain in this state.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the office of the sheriff.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    - 30 -
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise
    prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you
    should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert
    appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed
    [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent
    [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been
    proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt
    on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So. 2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ] and 2014.
    - 31 -
    11.14(g) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL OFFENDER TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Report Twice a Year/Failure to Report Quarterly)
    § 943.0435(14)(a) or (b), Fla. Stat.
    Give this statement if the charge is failure to report twice a year during the
    sexual offender’s birthday month and six months later pursuant to
    § 943.0435(14)(a), or, for certain specified violators, failure to report during the
    sexual offender’s birthday month and every third month thereafter pursuant to
    § 943.0435(14)(b).
    To prove the crime of Failure to Report [Twice a Year][Quarterly] as
    by a Sexual Offender to Comply with Registration Requirements, the State
    must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual offender.
    b.    has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual offender; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual offender status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual offender”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary,
    or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    Give 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, or 3e as applicable.
    3. (Defendant)
    a.    knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during
    [his] [her] birthday month in (year) to an office of the sheriff
    - 32 -
    in the county in which [he] [she] resides or is otherwise
    located.
    b.   knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during
    the sixth month following [his] [her] (year) birthday month
    to an office of the sheriff in the county in which [he] [she]
    resides or is otherwise located.
    c.   knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during
    every third month following [his] [her] (year) birthday
    month to an office of the sheriff in the county in which [he]
    [she] resides or is otherwise located.
    d.   knowingly failed to respond to the address verification
    correspondence from the Florida Department of Law
    Enforcement within three weeks from the date of the
    correspondence.
    e.   reported to an office of the sheriff of (name of county) to
    reregister,
    and
    Give i or ii as applicable.
    i.     knowingly failed to provide that office with (name the
    single unprovided registration item charged, as worded in
    the statute).
    ii.   knowingly failed to provide that office with any one or
    more of the following items: (name the unprovided
    registration items charged, as worded in the statute).
    Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a
    physical residential address.
    The defendant shall provide a physical residential address.
    A post office box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical
    residential address.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    - 33 -
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the office of the sheriff.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff] [Florida Department of Law
    Enforcement] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her]
    from complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him]
    [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff] [Florida Department of Law
    Enforcement] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her]
    from complying, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the
    charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    [office of the sheriff] [Florida Department of Law Enforcement] did not
    misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from
    complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her]
    guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a
    reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of
    whether the [office of the sheriff] [Florida Department of Law Enforcement]
    misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying,
    with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    - 34 -
    Definitions. See instruction 11.14(h) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So. 2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ],and 2013 [
    113 So. 3d 754
    ], and 2014.
    11.15 FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEXUAL PREDATOR
    (Initially Register – In Custody, Control or under the Supervision of the
    Department of Corrections)
    § 775.21(6)(b), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator, the State
    must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1.    (Defendant)
    a.    is a sexual predator.
    b.    has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator”
    or “convicted.”
    2.     (Defendant) is [in the custody or control of the Department of
    Corrections] [under the supervision of the Department of
    Corrections] [in the custody of a private correctional
    - 35 -
    facility][under the supervision of the Department of Corrections,
    but not incarcerated].
    3.     (Defendant) [knowingly failed to register with the Department of
    Corrections as a sexual predator][knowingly failed to register
    with the Department of Corrections within 3 days of having been
    classified as a sexual predator].
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator
    that (defendant) attempted to register as required by law but was misinformed
    or otherwise prevented from timely registering by the Department of
    Corrections.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the Department of Corrections misinformed [him] [her] or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her]
    not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the Department of Corrections misinformed [him] [her] or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her]
    guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable
    doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    - 36 -
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    Department of Corrections did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise
    prevent [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all
    of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable
    doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the
    Department of Corrections misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented
    [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So. 2d 531
    ] and amended in 2014.
    11.15(a) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEXUAL PREDATOR
    (Initially Register – Not in Custody, Control or under Supervision of the
    Department of Corrections or a Private Correctional Facility)
    § 775.21(6)(e), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator, the State
    must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual predator.
    b.    has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    - 37 -
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or
    transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    3. (Defendant) was not in the custody or control of or under the
    supervision of the Department of Corrections and was not in the
    custody of a private correctional facility.
    Give 4a or 4b or 4a and 4b, as appropriate.
    4(a). (Defendant) knowingly failed to register in person with an office
    of the sheriff in the county where [he] [she] [established]
    [maintained] residence within 48 hours after [he] [she] established
    permanent, temporary, or transient residence in this state.
    4(b). (Defendant) knowingly failed to register in person with an office
    of the sheriff in the county where [he] [she] was designated a sexual
    predator within 48 hours after having been so designated by the
    court.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure to Register as a Sexual Predator
    that (defendant) attempted to register as required by law but was misinformed
    or otherwise prevented from timely registering by the office of the sheriff.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    - 38 -
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise
    prevented [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the
    office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him]
    [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of
    the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent
    [him] [her] from registering, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the
    elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the office of
    the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from
    registering, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So.2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ] and 2014.
    - 39 -
    11.15(b) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS (Failure to Comply
    with Registration RequirementsProvide Required Information)
    § 775.21(6)(a)1, Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to
    Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following
    three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual predator.
    b.   has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or
    transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    3. (Defendant) knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of
    (name of county) County with [his] [her] [(name the single
    unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any
    one or more of the following items: [his] [her] (name the
    unprovided registration items charged, as worded in the statute)].
    Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a physical
    residential address.
    The defendant shall provide a physical residential address. A post office
    box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address.
    - 40 -
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the office of the sheriff.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise
    prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you
    should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert
    appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed
    [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent
    [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been
    proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt
    on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    - 41 -
    Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So. 2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 2d 1090
    ], and 2013 [
    113 So. 3d 754
    ], and 2014.
    11.15(c) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Comply with Registration of a Residence, Motor Vehicle, Trailer,
    Mobile Home, or Manufactured Home)
    §775.21(6)(a)1.a., Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to
    Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following
    three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual predator.
    b.   has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or
    transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    - 42 -
    Give 3a or 3b as applicable.
    3. (Defendant)
    a.   used as [his] [her] place of residence a [motor vehicle]
    [trailer] [mobile home] [manufactured home];
    and
    knowingly failed to provide [an office of the sheriff of (name
    of county) County] [the Florida Department of Law
    Enforcement] with [the (name the single unprovided
    registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or
    more of the following items: (name the unprovided
    registration items charged, as worded in the statute)]of the
    [motor vehicle] [trailer] [mobile home] [manufactured
    home] where [he] [she] resides.
    b.   used as [his] [her] place of residence a [vessel] [live-aboard
    vessel] [houseboat];
    and
    knowingly failed to provide [an office of the sheriff of (name
    of the county) County] [the Florida Department of Law
    Enforcement] with [the (name the single unprovided
    registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or
    more of the following items: (name the unprovided
    registration items charged, as worded in the statute)] of the
    [vessel] [live-aboard vessel] [houseboat] where [he] [she]
    resides.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the office of the sheriff.
    - 43 -
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise
    prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you
    should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert
    appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed
    [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent
    [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been
    proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt
    on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    - 44 -
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So.2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ], and 2014.
    11.15(d) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Comply with Registration of Enrollment or
    Employment in Institutions of Higher Education)
    § 775.21(6)(a)1.b., Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to
    Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following
    three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual predator.
    b.   has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the Court should not give the definition of “sexual predator”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary,
    or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    Give 3a, 3b, or 3c as applicable.
    3. (Defendant)
    a.   [is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a
    vocation at an institution of higher education in this
    state, and
    - 45 -
    knowingly failed to provide the office of the sheriff of (name
    of county) County with the [(name the single unprovided
    registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any one or
    more of the following items: (name the unprovided
    registration items charged, as worded in the statute)].
    b.   [is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at
    an institution of higher education in this state;
    undertook a change in [his] [her] enrollment or employment
    status, and
    knowingly failed to report this change in person at an office
    of the sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours
    after the change.
    c.   [is] [was] in the custody of or under the supervision of the
    Department of Corrections;
    [is] [was] enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at
    an institution of higher education in this state;
    undertook a change in [his] [her] enrollment or employment
    status, and
    knowingly failed to report this change to the Department of
    Corrections within 48 hours after the change.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Corrections].
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    - 46 -
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff][Department of Corrections]
    misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying
    with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. If
    the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the
    [office of the sheriff] [Department of Corrections] misinformed [him] [her] or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] [her]
    guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable
    doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    [office of the sheriff] [Department of Corrections]did not misinform
    (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying with the
    registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the
    elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the office of
    the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from
    complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not
    guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    - 47 -
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So.2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ], and 2014.
    11.15(e) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Report to Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles)
    § 775.21(6)(f), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure Failure to Register as by a Sexual
    Predator to Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the
    following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual predator.
    b.   has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a [permanent] [temporary]
    [transient] residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    Give 3a or 3b as applicable.
    3. (Defendant)
    a.   was not incarcerated;
    - 48 -
    [he] [she] resided in the community and was [under the
    supervision] [not under the supervision] of the Department
    of Corrections;
    [he] [she] registered as a sexual predator with an office of
    the sheriff of (name of county) County; and
    knowingly failed to report in person at a driver’s license
    office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor
    Vehicles within 48 hours after registering to present proof
    of this registration.
    b.   reported in person to a driver’s license office of the
    Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles,
    and either
    knowingly failed to [secure a Florida driver’s license]
    [renew a Florida driver’s license] [secure an
    identification card] or
    secured a Florida driver’s license] [renewed [his] [her]
    Florida driver’s license] [secured a Florida identification
    card], but in doing so,
    Give one or both of the following as applicable to the charge.
    i.    failed to report to that office that [he] [she] was a
    sexual predator.
    ii.   failed to provide that office with [(name the single
    unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the
    statute)] [any one or more of the following items:
    (name the unprovided registration items charged, as
    worded in the statute)].
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply withn
    the requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from
    complying by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
    - 49 -
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
    misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying
    with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. If
    the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the
    Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles misinformed [him] [her]
    or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him]
    [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a
    reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles did not misinform
    (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying with the
    registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the
    elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the
    Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles misinformed (defendant)
    or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
    - 50 -
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So. 2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ], and 2014.
    11.15(f) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Provide Other Necessary Information Requested by Department of
    Law Enforcement)
    § 775.21(6)(a)2, Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to
    Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following
    three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual predator.
    b.   has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or
    transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    3. (Defendant) knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of
    (name of county) County with [his] [her] [(name the single
    - 51 -
    unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the statute)] [any
    one or more of the following items determined necessary by the
    Florida Department of Law Enforcement: [his] [her] (name the
    unprovided registration items charged, as worded in the statute)].
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the office of the sheriff.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise
    prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you
    should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert
    appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed
    [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent
    [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should
    - 52 -
    find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been
    proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt
    on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So. 2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ], and 2014.
    11.15(g) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Report Change of Name or Address within the State or
    Jurisdiction)
    § 775.21(6)(g), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to
    Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following
    three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual predator.
    b.    has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    - 53 -
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a [permanent] [temporary]
    [transient] residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    Give 3a, 3b, or 3c as applicable.
    3. (Defendant)
    a.   knowingly failed to report in person to a driver’s license
    office [when [his] [her] driver’s license or identification
    card was subject to renewal] [within 48 hours after any
    change in [his] [her] permanent, temporary, or transient
    residence] [within 48 hours after any change in [his] [her]
    name by reason of [marriage] [(specify other legal process)]].
    b.   knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the
    sheriff of (name of county) County within 48 hours of
    vacating [his] [her] permanent, temporary, or transient
    residence and failing to establish or maintain another
    permanent, temporary, or transient residence.
    c.   knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the
    sheriff of (name of county) County that [he] [she] did not
    vacate [his] [her] permanent, temporary, or transient
    residence within 48 hours after (defendant) reported to that
    agency [his] [her] intent to vacate [his] [her] permanent,
    temporary, or transient residence.
    d.   reported to
    Give i or ii as applicable.
    i.     an office of the sheriff of (name of county)
    ii.    a driver’s license office of the Department of Highway
    Safety and Motor Vehicles
    and
    Give iii or iv as applicable.
    - 54 -
    iii.   knowingly failed to provide that office with (name the
    single unprovided registration item charged, as worded in
    the statute).
    iv.    knowingly failed to provide that office with any one or
    more of the following items: (name the unprovided
    registration items charged, as worded in the statute).
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Offender to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the [office of the sheriff] [Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles].
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff][Department of Highway Safety and
    Motor Vehicles] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her]
    from complying with the registration requirements, you should find [him]
    [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the [office of the sheriff][Department of Highway Safety and
    Motor Vehicles] misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her]
    from complying, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the
    charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    - 55 -
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    [office of the sheriff][Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] did
    not misinform (defendant) or otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying
    with the registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of
    the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the [office of
    the sheriff][Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] misinformed
    (defendant) or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the
    registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So.2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ], and 2014.
    11.15(h) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Respond To Address Verification Correspondence)
    § 775.21(10)(a), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to
    Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following
    three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual predator.
    b.   has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the
    - 56 -
    sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not give the definition of “sexual predator”
    or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or
    transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    3. (Defendant) knowingly failed to respond to address verification
    correspondence from the Florida Department of Law
    Enforcement within three weeks from the date of the
    correspondence.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement misinformed
    - 57 -
    [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the
    registration requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the
    defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the
    Florida Department of Law Enforcement misinformed [him] [her] or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] [her]
    guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable
    doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    Florida Department of Law Enforcement did not misinform (defendant) or did
    not otherwise prevent [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, as worded in the statute)], you should find [him] [her] guilty, if
    all of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable
    doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether the
    Florida Department of Law Enforcement misinformed (defendant) or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] [her]
    not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So.2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [85 So. 3d1090], and 2014.
    11.15(i) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Report Intent to Move to Another State or Jurisdiction)
    § 775.21(6)(i), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to
    Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following
    three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    - 58 -
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual predator.
    b.    has agreed or stipulated that he has been convicted as a
    sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the sexual
    predator status element as proven by agreement of the
    parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not also give the definition of “sexual
    predator” or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or
    transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    Give 3a or 3b as applicable.
    3. (Defendant)
    a.   intended to leave this State to establish a permanent,
    temporary, or transient residence in another state or
    jurisdiction on (date);
    and
    knowingly failed to report in person to an office of the
    sheriff in the county of [his] [her] current residence within
    48 hours before the date on which [he] [she] intended to
    leave this state to establish residence in another state or
    jurisdiction.
    b.    (Defendant)
    reported to an office of the sheriff of the county of [his]
    [her] current residence [his] [her] intention to establish
    residence in another state or jurisdiction;
    and
    - 59 -
    knowingly failed to provide [[his] [her] (name the single
    unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the statute)]
    [any one or more of the following items: [his] [her] (name
    the unprovided registration items charged, as worded in the
    statute).]
    Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a physical
    residential address.
    The defendant shall provide a physical residential address. A post office
    box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure by a Sexual Predator to Comply
    with Registration Requirements that (defendant) attempted to comply with the
    requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from complying by
    the office of the sheriff.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise
    prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you
    should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert
    appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed
    [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    - 60 -
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent
    [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been
    proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt
    on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So. 2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ], and2013 [
    113 So. 3d 754
    ], and 2014.
    11.15(j) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR
    TO COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Report Intent to Remain within the State or Jurisdiction)
    § 775.21(6)(j), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to
    Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following
    five elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual predator.
    b.   has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the
    - 61 -
    sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not also give the definition of “sexual
    predator” or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) established or maintained a permanent, temporary, or
    transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    3. (Defendant) indicated to an office of the sheriff of (name of county)
    County [his] [her] intent to leave this state on (date of intended
    departure) and establish a permanent, temporary, or transient
    residence in another state or jurisdiction.
    4. (Defendant) later decided to remain in this state.
    5. Within 48 hours after the date of [his] [her] originally intended
    departure from this state, (defendant) knowingly failed to report to
    an office of the sheriff of (name of county) County that [he] [she]
    instead decided to remain in this state.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure to Comply with Registration
    Requirements as a Sexual Predator that (defendant) attempted to comply with
    the requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from
    complying by the office of the sheriff.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    - 62 -
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise
    prevented [him [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you
    should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert
    appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed
    [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent
    [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been
    proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt
    on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So.2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ], and 2014.
    - 63 -
    11.15(k) FAILURE TO REGISTER AS BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO
    COMPLY WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
    (Failure to Register Quarterly)
    § 775.21(8)(a), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Failure to Register as by a Sexual Predator to
    Comply with Registration Requirements, the State must prove the following
    three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give 1a or 1b as applicable.
    1. (Defendant)
    a.   is a sexual predator.
    b.    has agreed or stipulated that [he] [she] has been convicted
    as a sexual predator; therefore, you should consider the
    sexual predator status element as proven by agreement of
    the parties.
    If the defendant offers to stipulate, the court must accept the offer after
    conducting an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant. See Brown v. State, 
    719 So. 2d 882
     (Fla. 1998); Johnson v. State, 
    842 So. 2d 228
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If
    there is a stipulation, the court should not also give the definition of “sexual
    predator” or “convicted.”
    2. (Defendant) [established] [maintained] a permanent, temporary,
    or transient residence in (name of county) County, Florida.
    Give 3a, 3b, or 3c as applicable.
    3. (Defendant)
    a.   knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during
    [his] [her] birthday month in (year) to an office of the sheriff
    in the county in which [he] [she] resides or is otherwise
    located.
    b.    knowingly failed to reregister by reporting in person during
    every third month following [his] [her] (year) birthday
    month to an office of the sheriff in the county in which [he]
    [she] resides or is otherwise located.
    - 64 -
    c.   knowingly failed to provide an office of the sheriff of (name
    of county) County with a change to [his] [her] [(name the
    single unprovided registration item charged, as worded in the
    statute)] [any one or more of the following items: [his] [her]
    (name the unprovided registration items charged, as worded in
    the statute)].
    Read only if the defendant is charged with failing to provide a physical
    residential address.
    The defendant shall provide a physical residential address. A post office
    box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address.
    Give if the defendant meets his or her burden of production. See Barnes v.
    State, 
    108 So. 3d 700
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
    It is a defense to the crime of Failure to Comply with Registration
    Requirements as a Sexual Predator that (defendant) attempted to comply with
    the requirements but was misinformed or otherwise prevented from
    complying by the office of the sheriff.
    There is no statute for the defense of being misinformed or otherwise
    prevented from registering, and the case law is silent as to (1) which party bears
    the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the
    burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of
    production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a
    preponderance of the evidence.
    The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a
    defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of
    persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the
    absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction.
    See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 
    548 U.S. 1
     (2006), for further guidance.
    If burden of persuasion is on the defendant:
    If you find that (defendant) proved (insert appropriate burden of
    persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him] [her] or otherwise
    prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you
    should find [him] [her] not guilty. If the defendant did not prove (insert
    appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed
    [him] [her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should
    - 65 -
    find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under
    the beyond a reasonable standard:
    If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    office of the sheriff did not misinform (defendant) or did not otherwise prevent
    [him] [her] from complying with the registration requirements, you should
    find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been
    proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt
    on the issue of whether the office of the sheriff misinformed (defendant) or
    otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying with the registration
    requirements, you should find [him] [her] not guilty.
    Definitions. See instruction 11.15(l) for the applicable definitions.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2008 [
    983 So. 2d 531
    ] and revised amended
    in 2012 [
    85 So. 3d 1090
    ], and2013 [
    113 So. 3d 754
    ], and 2014.
    11.19 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BETWEEN DETENTION FACILITY
    EMPLOYEES AND INMATES
    § 951.221(1), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Sexual Misconduct Between Detention Facility
    Employees and Inmates, the State must prove the following three elements
    beyond a reasonable doubt:
    1. (Defendant) was an employee of a [county or municipal detention
    facility] [private detention facility under contract with a county
    commission].
    2. While an employee, (defendant) engaged in sexual misconduct with
    (inmate).
    - 66 -
    3. At the time, (inmate) was an [inmate] [offender supervised by the
    facility].
    § 951.221(1), Fla. Stat. Consent is not a defense.
    The consent of an [inmate] [offender] to any act of sexual misconduct is
    not a defense to the crime of Sexual Misconduct.
    Definitions.
    § 951.221(1), Fla. Stat. and § 944.35(3)(b)1, Fla. Stat.
    “Sexual Misconduct” means the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or
    union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of
    another by any other object, but does not include an act done for a bona fide
    medical purpose or an internal search conducted in the lawful performance of
    the employee’s duty.
    Give as applicable.
    “Union” means contact.
    § 951.23(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
    “County Detention Facility” means a county jail, a county stockade, a
    county work camp, a county residential probation center, and any other place
    except a municipal detention facility used by a county or county officer for the
    detention of persons charged with or convicted of either felony or
    misdemeanor.
    § 951.23(1)(b), Fla. Stat.
    “County Residential Probation Center” means a county-operated
    facility housing offenders serving misdemeanor sentences or first-time felony
    sentences.
    § 951.23(1)(d), Fla. Stat.
    “Municipal Detention Facility” means a city jail, a city stockade, a city
    prison camp, and any other place except a county detention facility used by a
    municipality or municipal officer for the detention of persons charged with or
    convicted of a violation of municipal laws or ordinances.
    - 67 -
    Lesser Included Offenses
    SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BETWEEN DETENTION FACILITY
    EMPLOYEES AND INMATES — 951.221(1)
    None
    Battery               784.03            8.3
    Attempt               777.04(1)         5.1
    Assault               784.011           8.1
    Comment
    This instruction was adopted in 2014.
    20.20 MORTGAGE FRAUD
    § 817.545(2) & (5), Fla. Stat.
    In order to prove the crime of Mortgage Fraud, the State must prove
    the following element beyond a reasonable doubt:
    (Defendant), with intent to defraud, knowingly:
    Give a, b, c, d, and/or e as applicable.
    a. made any material [misstatement] [misrepresentation] [omission]
    during the mortgage lending process with the intent that the
    [misstatement] [misrepresentation] [omission] would be relied on
    by [a mortgage lender] [a borrower] [or] [any other person or
    entity] involved in the mortgage lending process];
    b. used or facilitated the use of any material [misstatement]
    [misrepresentation] [omission] during the mortgage lending
    process with the intent that the material [misstatement]
    [misrepresentation] [omission] would be relied on by [a mortgage
    lender][a borrower] or [any other person or entity] involved in the
    mortgage lending process;
    c. received any [proceeds] [or other funds] in connection with the
    mortgage lending process that [he] [she] knew resulted from the
    making of any material [misstatement] [misrepresentation]
    [omission] during the mortgage lending process that was made
    with the intent that the [misstatement] [misrepresentation]
    - 68 -
    [omission] would be relied on by [a mortgage lender] [a borrower]
    [or] [any other person or entity] involved in the mortgage lending
    process];
    d. received any [proceeds] [or other funds] in connection with the
    mortgage lending process that [he] [she] knew resulted from the
    use of any material [misstatement] [misrepresentation] [omission]
    during the mortgage lending process that was made with the
    intent that the material [misstatement] [misrepresentation]
    [omission] would be relied on by [a mortgage lender] [a borrower]
    or [any other person or entity] involved in the mortgage lending
    process];
    e. filed or caused to be filed with the clerk of the circuit court for
    any Florida county a document involved in the mortgage lending
    process which contained a material [misstatement]
    [misrepresentation] [or] [omission].
    Give if applicable. § 817.545(5)(b), Fla. Stat.
    If you find that the defendant guilty of Mortgage Fraud, you must also
    determine if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether the loan
    value stated on documents used in the mortgage lending process exceeded
    $100,000.
    § 817.545(2)(a) & (b), Fla. Stat.
    Omissions on a loan application regarding employment, income, or
    assets for a loan which does not require this information are not considered
    material omissions for purposes of Mortgage Fraud.
    § 817.545(1), Fla. Stat.
    Documents involved in the mortgage lending process include, but are
    not limited to, mortgages, deeds, surveys, inspection reports, uniform
    residential loan applications, or other loan applications; appraisal reports;
    HUD-1 settlement statements; supporting personal documentation for loan
    applications such as W-2 forms, verifications of income and employment,
    credit reports, bank statements, tax returns, and payroll stubs; and any
    required disclosures.
    § 817.545(1), Fla. Stat.
    “Mortgage lending process” means the process through which a person
    seeks or obtains a residential mortgage loan, including, but not limited to, the
    - 69 -
    solicitation, application or origination, negotiation of terms, third-party
    provider services, underwriting, signing and closing, and funding of the loan.
    “Knowingly” means that the defendant is aware of the act and is not
    acting through ignorance, mistake or accident.
    “Material” means a fact a reasonable person would use to decide
    whether to do or not to do something. A fact is material if it has the capacity
    or natural tendency to influence a person’s decision. Any misrepresentation
    or concealment must be reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary
    prudence and comprehension.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    MORTGAGE FRAUD — 817.545
    CATEGORY ONE  CATEGORY TWO     FLA. STAT.                        INS. NO.
    None
    Attempt          777.04(1)                         5.1
    Comment
    The crime of Mortgage Fraud may not be predicated solely upon information
    lawfully disclosed under federal disclosure laws, regulations, or interpretations
    related to the mortgage lending process. See § 817.545(3), Fla. Stat.
    This instruction was adopted in 2014.
    22.15 [MANUFACTUING] [OWNING] [STORING] [KEEPING]
    [POSSESSION OF] [PERMITTING THE OPERATION OF] [SELLING]
    [LEASING] [TRANSPORTING]OF A SLOT MACHINE
    § 849.15(1)(a) and (b), Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the
    following element beyond a reasonable doubt:
    Give as applicable.
    (Defendant)
    - 70 -
    a. [manufactured] [owned] [stored] [kept] [possessed]
    [sold] [leased] [let on shares] [lent] [gave away] [transported]
    [exposed for sale or lease] any slot machine or device [or any part
    of a slot machine or device].
    b. offered to [sell] [rent] [lease] [let on shares] [lend] [give away] any
    slot machine or device [or any part of a slot machine or device].
    c. permitted the operation of any slot machine or device [or any part
    of a slot machine or device].
    d. permitted any slot machine or device [or any part of
    a slot machine or device] to be [placed] [maintained] [used] [kept]
    in a [room] [space] [building] owned, leased, or occupied by [him]
    [her] or under [his] [her] management or control.
    e. [or permitted to be made] an agreement with another, pursuant
    to which the user of any slot machine or device, as a result of any
    element of chance [or other outcome unpredictable to him or her]
    may become entitled to receive [money] [credit] [allowance] [a
    thing of value] [an additional chance or right to use the slot
    machine or device] [any [check] [slug] [token] [memorandum]
    entitling the holder to receive [money] [credit] [allowance] [or]
    [thing of value]].
    § 849.16, Fla. Stat.
    A “slot machine or device” is a machine or device or system or network
    of devices that is adapted for use in such a way that, upon activation, which
    may be achieved by, but is not limited to, as a result of the insertion of any
    piece of money, coin, account number, code, or other object or information,
    such device or system is directly or indirectly caused to operate or may be
    operated or other object, such machine or device is caused to operate or may
    be operated and if the user, whether by application of skill or by reason of any
    element of chance or of any other outcome of such operation unpredictable by
    him or her, the user, may:
    (a)     receive or become entitled to receive any piece of money, credit,
    allowance, or thing of value; or
    - 71 -
    (b) receive or become entitled to receive any check, slug, token, or
    memorandum, whether of value or otherwise, which may be
    exchanged for any money, credit, allowance, or thing of value or
    which may be given in trade; or
    (c)   secure additional chances or rights to use such machine,
    apparatus, or device, even though the device or system may be
    available for free play, or, it may, in addition to any element of
    chance or unpredictable outcome of such operation, may also sell,
    deliver, or present some merchandise, indication of weight,
    entertainment, or other thing of value.
    Give if applicable. §§ 849.16(1)(b), 551.102(8), Fla. Stats.
    A “slot machine” includes, but is not limited to, devices regulated as slot
    machines under chapter 551 of Florida Statutes. Under chapter 551, a “slot
    machine” means any mechanical or electrical contrivance, terminal that may
    or may not be capable of downloading slot games from a central server
    system, machine, or other device that, upon insertion of a coin, bill, ticket,
    token, or similar object or upon payment of any consideration whatsoever,
    including the use of any electronic payment system except a credit card or
    debit card, is available to play or operate, the play or operation of which,
    whether by reason of skill or application of the element of chance or both,
    may deliver or entitle the person or persons playing or operating the
    contrivance, terminal, machine, or other device to receive cash, billets, tickets,
    tokens, or electronic credits to be exchanged for cash or to receive
    merchandise or anything of value whatsoever, whether the payoff is made
    automatically from the machine or manually. The term includes associated
    equipment necessary to conduct the operation of the contrivance, terminal,
    machine, or other device. Slot machines may use spinning reels, video
    displays, or both. [A slot machine is not a “coin-operated amusement
    machine” as defined in § 212.02(24), Fla. Stat. or an amusement game or
    machine as described in § 849.161, Fla. Stat.] Instruct on § 212.02(24), Fla. Stat.
    or § 849.161, Fla. Stat. as applicable.
    Give if applicable. § 849.094(8)(a), Fla. Stat.
    Compliance with the rules of the Department of Agriculture and
    Consumer Services is not a defense to a charge of Possession of a Slot Machine
    or Device.
    Give if applicable. § 849.16(3), Fla. Stat.
    - 72 -
    You are permitted to infer that a device, system, or network is a
    prohibited slot machine or device if it is used to display images of games of
    chance and is part of a scheme involving any payment or donation of money
    or its equivalent and awarding anything of value.
    Lesser Included Offenses
    [POSSESSION] [PERMITTING THE OPERATION] OF A SLOT
    MACHINE — 849.15(1)(a) and (b)
    CATEGORY ONE      CATEGORY TWO        FLA. STAT. INS. NO.
    None
    Attempt             777.04(1)  5.1
    Comments
    It is not necessary for the State to prove that the slot machine or device was
    used for gambling. See Eccles v. Stone, 
    183 So. 628
     (Fla. 1938); Dept. of Business
    Regulation v. Rains, 
    477 So. 2d 1029
     (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
    It is a defense to Possession of a Slot Machine if the device is an antique slot
    machine and is not being used for gambling. An antique slot machine is one which
    was manufactured at least 20 years prior to the prosecution. See § 849.235, Fla.
    Stat.
    This instruction was adopted in 2013 [
    122 So. 3d 302
    ] and amended in 2014.
    - 73 -