3.6(b). Insanity - Hallucinations | Pdf Doc Docx | Florida_JI

 Florida Jury Instructions /  Criminal /  03 Final Charge To The Jury /
3.6(b). Insanity - Hallucinations | Pdf Doc Docx | Florida_JI

3.6(b). Insanity - Hallucinations

This is a Florida Jury Instructions form that can be used for 03 Final Charge To The Jury within Criminal.

Alternate TextLast updated: 2/28/2006

Included Formats to Download
$ 13.99

Description

3.6(b) INSANITY - HALLUCINATIONS An issue in this case is whether [name of defendant] was insane when the crime allegedly was committed. A person is considered to be insane when: 1. The person had a mental infirmity, disease, or defect. 2. Because of this condition, the person had hallucinations or delusions which caused the person to honestly believe to be facts things which are not true or real. The guilt or innocence of a person suffering from such hallucinations or delusions is to be determined just as though the hallucinations or delusions were actual facts. If the act of the person would have been lawful had the hallucinations or delusions been the actual facts, the person is not guilty of the crime. NOTE TO JUDGE: If voluntary intoxication is raised by the defense, see 3.04(g). All persons are presumed to be sane. However, if the evidence causes you to have a reasonable doubt concerning [name of defendant]s sanity, then the presumption of sanity vanishes and the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [name of defendant] was sane. In determining the issue of insanity, you may consider the testimony of expert and non expert witnesses. The question you must answer is not whether [name of defendant] is insane today, or has ever been insane, but simply if [name of defendant] was insane at the time the crime allegedly was committed. Unrestrained passion or ungovernable temper is not insanity, even though the normal judgment of the person be overcome by passion or temper. If the evidence establishes that [name of defendant] had been adjudged insane by a court, and has not been judicially restored to legal sanity, then you should assume [name of defendant] was insane at the time of commission of the alleged crime, unless the evidence convinces you otherwise. If you find that [name of defendant] committed the crime but have a reasonable doubt that [name of defendant] was sane at that time, then you should find [name of defendant] not guilty by reason of insanity. If your verdict is that [name of defendant] is not guilty because insane, that does not necessarily mean [name of defendant] will be released from custody. I must conduct further proceedings to determine if [name of defendant] should be committed to a mental hospital or given other outpatient treatment or released.

Our Products