Dail hears there should be no further delay with Mica Redress

first_img Harps come back to win in Waterford Dail hears there should be no further delay with Mica Redress Google+ Facebook Pinterest RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR DL Debate – 24/05/21 Twitter Derry draw with Pats: Higgins & Thomson Reaction News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th Previous articleChildren over 6 will be asked to social distance in play podsNext articleGovernment urged to reimburse Councils for rates income News Highland Facebookcenter_img Pinterest The Dail has been told there should be no further delay with the Mica Redress Scheme, as Donegal County Council awaits the detail of the scheme, and the go ahead to publiash the criteria and invite applications.Deputy Padraig Mac Lochlainn urged the government to ensure there is no further delay, and also stressed that requirement for households to meet 10% of the costs must be revisited:Audio Playerhttps://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/podfghfghgfhfgmica7am.mp300:0000:0000:00Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.Responding, Junior Minister John Paul Phelan said he would bring the points raised to Minister Eoghan Murphy.He also pledged to ensure the government gives Donegal County Council the support it needs:Audio Playerhttps://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/phelddghdfgdfan7am.mp300:0000:0000:00Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume. FT Report: Derry City 2 St Pats 2 Journey home will be easier – Paul Hegarty By News Highland – May 28, 2020 Google+ WhatsApp AudioHomepage BannerNews Twitter WhatsApplast_img read more

Amendments to criminal jury instructions

first_img Comments For the category two lesser included offense of Obedience to Police, see Koch v. State, 39 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). This instruction was adopted in 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081] and 2011. 28.84 AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING (Leaving a Crash Involving Injury or Death then Causing Injury or Property Damage to Another) § 316.1935(4)(a) and § 316.027 Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding, the State must prove the following seven elements beyond a reasonable doubt: None FLA.STAT. Leaving Scene of Accident Involving Death316.027(1)(b)28.4 CATEGORY ONE Obedience to Police and Fire Department Officials316.072(3) CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING (Leaving a Crash Involving Injury or Death and then Causing Serious Injury Bodily Injury or Death) – 316.1935(4)(b) and 316.027 Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(3)(a)28.8 Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(3)(b)28.81 None Obedience to Police and Fire Department Officials316.072(3) intentionally inflicted [physical][or] [mental] injury upon (victim) . (Victim) was under the age of 18 years. Parental affirmative defense. Give if applicable. See Raford v. State, 828 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2002). § 827.03 Fla. Stat. and case law are 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 affirmative defenses 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 opinions in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006) for further guidance. It is not a crime for [a parent] [a person who is acting as the lawful guardian] of a child to impose reasonable physical discipline on a child for misbehavior under the circumstances even though physical injury resulted from the discipline. ( Insert appropriate burden of persuasion to appropriate party.) Definitions, give as applicable. § 39.01(42), Florida Statutes. “ Mental injury” means any injury to the intellectual or psychological capacity of a child as evidenced by a discernible and substantial impairment in the ability to function within the normal range of performance and behavior. Lesser Included Offenses Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(3)(b)28.81 This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985, 1989, and 2002 , and 2011. Battery; only under certain circumstances. See Kama v. State, 507 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) 784.038.3 812.019(1)14.2 January 15, 2011 Notices Give 3a if death is charged or 3b if injury is charged. 3. a. (Defendant) knew or should have known of the injury to or death of the person. CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. INS. NO. Petit theft — first degree812.014(2)(e) actively encouraged another person to commit an act that resulted in or could reasonably have been expected to result in [physical] [or] [mental] injury to (victim) . Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(2)28.7 Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(1)28.6 AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING (Leaving A Crash Involving Damage to a Vehicle or Property then Causing Injury or Property Damage to Another) – 316.1935(4)(a) and 316.061 None Fleeing to elude316.1935(1)28.6 CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Comment Lesser Included Offenses Reckless Driving316.19228.5 28.6 FLEEING TO ELUDE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER § 316.1935(1), Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Fleeing to Elude a Law Enforcement Officer, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) was operating a vehicle upon a street or highway in Florida. 2. A duly authorized law enforcement officer ordered the defendant to stop or remain stopped. Give 3a or 3b as applicable. 3. (Defendant) , knowing [he] [she] had been directed ordered to stop by a duly authorized law enforcement officer, 1. ( Defendant ) was the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash resulting in [injury to] [the death of] any person. 2. ( Defendant ) knew or should have known that [he] [she] was involved in a crash. Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(1)28.6 Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(1)28.6 Comment For the category two lesser included offense, see Koch v. State, 39 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). This instruction was adopted in 2000 [765 So. 2d 692] and amended in 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081] and 2011. 28.8 FLEEING TO ELUDE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (Siren and lights activated with high speed or reckless driving) § 316.1935(3)(a), Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Fleeing to Elude a Law Enforcement Officer, the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (Defendant) was operating a vehicle upon a street or highway in Florida. Give 2a or 2b as applicable 2. (Defendant) , knowing [he] [she] had been directed to stop by a duly authorized law enforcement officer, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude a law enforcement officer. a. willfully refused or failed to stop the vehicle in compliance with the order. b. having stopped the vehicle, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude the officer. None If the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant willfully failed to give any part of the “identifying information” or willfully failed to give reasonable assistance, the State satisfies this element of the offense. Definitions. “Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. “Identifying information” means the name, address, vehicle registration number, and, if available and requested, the exhibition of the defendant’s license or permit to drive. “Reasonable assistance” includes carrying or making arrangement to carry the injured person to a physician or hospital for medical treatment. Lesser Included Offenses Dealing in stolen property The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases submits the following amended and new instructions to the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases for comment. The committee proposes the following instructions:14.2 Dealing in Stolen Property (Fencing)14.3 Dealing in Stolen Property (Organizing)16.3 Child Abuse28.6 Fleeing to Elude a Law Enforcement Officer28.7 Fleeing to Elude a Law Enforcement Officer (Siren and lights activated)28.8 Fleeing to Elude a Law Enforcement Officer (Siren and lights activated with high speed or reckless driving)28.81 Fleeing to Elude a Law Enforcement Officer (Siren and lights activated with high speed or reckless driving causing serious bodily injury or death)28.82 Aggravated Fleeing Or Eluding (Leaving a Crash Involving Injury or Death then Causing Serious Bodily Injury or Death)28.83 Aggravated Fleeing Or Eluding (Leaving a Crash Involving Damage to a Vehicle or Property then Causing Serious Bodily Injury or Death)28.84 Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding (Leaving a Crash Involving Injury or Death then Causing Injury or Property Damage to Another)28.85 Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding (Leaving a Crash Involving Damage to a Vehicle or Property then Causing Injury or Property Damage to Another)The committee invites all interested persons to comment on the proposals, reproduced in full below. Comments must be received by the committee in both hard copy and electronic format on or before February 15. The committee will review all comments received in response to the above proposal at its next meeting and will consider amendments based upon the comments received. Upon final approval of the instruction, the committee will make a recommendation to the Florida Supreme Court. File your comments electronically to, in the format of a Word document. In addition, mail a hard copy of your comments to Standard Jury Instructions Committee in Criminal Cases, c/o Bart Schneider, General Counsel’s Office, Office of the State Courts Administrator, 500 S. Duval Street, Tallahassee 32399-1900. 14.2 DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY (FENCING) § 812.019(1), Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Dealing in Stolen Property (Fencing), the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) [trafficked in] [endeavored to traffic in] (property alleged) . 2. (Defendant) knew or should have known that (property alleged) was stolen. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below the fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(4), Fla. Stat. Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, out of the regular course of business or without the usual indicia of ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that it had been stolen. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(5), Fla. Stat. Proof that a dealer who regularly deals in used property possesses stolen property, upon which a name and phone number of a person other than the offeror of the property are conspicuously displayed, gives rise to an inference that the dealer possessing the property knew or should have known that the property was stolen. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(6), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person was in possession of a stolen motor vehicle and that the ignition mechanism of the motor vehicle had been bypassed or the steering wheel locking mechanism had been broken or bypassed, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the stolen motor vehicle knew or should have known that the motor vehicle had been stolen. Give if jury is also instructed on theft for crime committed in same scheme or course of conduct. § 812.025, Fla. Stat. You will receive separate verdict forms for theft and dealing in stolen property, because the defendant is charged with both offenses. However, Florida law places limits on a jury’s authority to find the defendant guilty of both crimes. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed both offenses but conclude that the offenses occurred in a single scheme or course of criminal conduct, you are permitted to find the defendant guilty of one of the offenses, but not both. I cannot assist you in making this choice other than to define what constitutes a single scheme or course of conduct. Offenses of theft and dealing in stolen property which involve a single item or group of item(s) are part of a single scheme or course of criminal conduct unless the offenses are purposefully interrupted by a period of time or series of events that unquestionably separates one offense from the other. See Hall v. State, 826 So. 2d 268, 271 (Fla. 2002); Toson v. State, 864 So. 2d 552, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Definitions. § 812.012(3), Fla. Stat. “Property” means anything of value, and includes: real property, including things growing on, affixed to and found in land; tangible or intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, and claims; and services. §§ 812.012(6), 812.028(3), Fla. Stat. “Stolen property” means property that has been the subject of any criminally wrongful taking or if the property has not been stolen, that it was offered for sale to (defendant) as stolen property. § 812.012(7), Fla. Stat. “Traffic” means: to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise dispose of property; and to buy, receive, possess, obtain control of or use property with the intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise dispose of that property. 3. The law enforcement officer was in an authorized law enforcement patrol vehicle with agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle and with siren and lights activated. Definitions. “Operator” means any person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the highway [or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle]. “Street or highway” means the entire width between boundary lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the public for purposes of vehicular traffic. “Vehicle” means every device, in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. “Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. Lesser Included Offenses Reckless Driving316.19228.5 4. During the course of the fleeing or the attempt to elude, (defendant) drove at high speed or in any manner demonstrating a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Definitions. “Operator” means any person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the highway [or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle]. “Street or highway” means the entire width between boundary lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the public for purposes of vehicular traffic. “Vehicle” means every device, in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. “Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. Lesser Included Offenses Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(3)(a)28.8 FLEEING TO ELUDE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER — 316.1935(1) Attempt777.04(1)5.1 CATEGORY ONE INS. NO. FLEEING TO ELUDE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER — 316.1935 (3)(a) CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Lesser Included Offenses Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(3)(b)28.81 Fleeing to elude316.1935(3)(a)28.8 willfully refused or failed to stop the vehicle in compliance with the order having stopped the vehicle, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude the officer. Comment For the category two lesser included offense of Obedience to Police, see Koch v. State, 39 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). This instruction was adopted in 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081] and 2011. 28.82 AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING (Leaving a Crash Involving Injury or Death then Causing Serious Bodily Injury or Death) § 316.1935(4)(b) and § 316.027, Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding, the State must prove the following seven elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) was the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash resulting in [injury to] [the death of] any person. 2. (Defendant) knew or should have known that [he] [she] was involved in a crash. Give 3a if death is charged or 3b if injury is charged. 3. a. (Defendant) knew or should have known of the injury to or death of the person. Obedience to Police and Fire Department Officials316.072(3) Obedience to Police and Fire Department Officials316.072(3) Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Damage to Vehicle or Property316.061N/A 5. As a result of ( defendant’s) fleeing or eluding at high speed or wanton disregard for safety, [he] [she] caused [the death of] [serious bodily injury to] [another person] [a law enforcement officer involved in pursuing or otherwise attempting to stop [his] [her] vehicle]. Definitions. “Operator” means any person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the highway [or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle]. “Street or highway” means the entire width between boundary lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the public for purposes of vehicular traffic. “Vehicle” means every device, in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. “Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. Lesser Included Offenses AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING (Leaving a Crash Involving Damage to a Vehicle or Property then Causing Serious Bodily Injury or Death) – 316.1935(4)(b) and 316.061 CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Fleeing to elude316.1935(1)28.6 Comment For the category two lesser included offense, see Koch v. State, 39 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). This instruction was adopted in 2000 [765 So. 2d 692] and amended in 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081] and 2011. 28.7 FLEEING TO ELUDE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (Siren and lights activated) § 316.1935(2), Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Fleeing to Elude a Law Enforcement Officer, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) was operating a vehicle upon a street or highway in Florida. Give 2a or 2b as applicable. 2. (Defendant) , knowing [he] [she] had been directed to stop by a duly authorized law enforcement officer, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude a law enforcement officer. AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING (Leaving a Crash Involving Injury or Death and then Causing Injury or Property Damage to Another) – 316.1935(4)(a) and § 316.027 DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY — TRAFFICKING — 812.019(1) FLEEING TO ELUDE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER — 316.1935(1) CATEGORY ONE b. (Defendant) knew or should have known of the injury to the person. Give 4a or 4b or both as applicable. 4. (Defendant) a. willfully failed to stop at the scene of the crash or as close to the crash as possible and remain there until [he] [she] had given “identifying information” to the [injured person] [driver] [occupant][person attending the vehicle or other damaged property] and to any police officer investigating the crash. b. willfully failed to render “reasonable assistance” to the injured person if such treatment appeared to be necessary or was requested by the injured person. 5. A duly authorized law enforcement officer ordered (defendant) to stop. 6. ( Defendant ), knowing [he][she] had been ordered to stop by a law enforcement officer, [willfully refused or failed to stop [his][her]vehicle in compliance with the order to stop] [and after having stopped in knowing compliance with the order to stop, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude the law enforcement officer.] 7. As a result of ( defendant ) fleeing or eluding, [he] [she] caused [serious bodily injury to] [the death of] ( name of victim ). I further instruct you that § 316.027, Fla. Stat. A driver has the legal duty to immediately stop [his] [her] vehicle at the scene of the crash or as close to the scene of the crash as possible and provide “identifying information.” FLA.STAT. CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. 3. The law enforcement officer was in an authorized law enforcement patrol vehicle with agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle and with siren and lights activated. Comments For the category two lesser included offense of Obedience to Police, see Koch v. State, 39 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). This instruction was adopted in 2008 [ SC07-1851, January 10, 2008 976 So. 2d 1081 ] and 2011. 28.83 AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING (Leaving a Crash Involving Damage to a Vehicle or Property then Causing Serious Bodily Injury or Death) § 316.1935(4)(b) and § 316.061, Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding, the State must prove the following seven elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) was the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash resulting only in damage [to a vehicle] [to property other than a vehicle] which was driven or attended by a person. 2. (Defendant) knew or should have known that [he] [she] was involved in a crash. 3. (Defendant) knew or should have known of the damage to [the vehicle] [the attended property]. 4. (Defendant) willfully failed to stop at the scene of the crash or as close to the crash as possible and remain there until [he] [she] had given “identifying information” to the [driver] [person attending the damaged property] and to any police officer investigating the crash. 5. A duly authorized law enforcement officer ordered (defendant) to stop. 6. (Defendant) , knowing [he] [she] had been ordered to stop by a law enforcement officer, [willfully refused or failed to stop [his] [her] vehicle in compliance with the order to stop] [and after having stopped in knowing compliance with the order to stop, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude the law enforcement officer]. 7. As a result of ( defendant ) fleeing or eluding, [he] she] caused [serious bodily injury to] [the death of] (name of victim) . Contributing to the dependency of a minor827.04(1)16.4 Fleeing to elude316.1935(2)28.7 Give 4a or 4b or both as applicable. 4. (Defendant) a. willfully failed to stop at the scene of the crash or as close to the crash as possible and remain there until [he] [she] had given “identifying information” to the [injured person] [driver] [occupant] [person attending the vehicle or other damaged property] and to any police officer investigating the crash. b. willfully failed to render “reasonable assistance” to the injured person if such treatment appeared to be necessary or was requested by the injured person. 5. A duly authorized law enforcement officer ordered (defendant) to stop. Reckless Driving316.19228.5 Leaving Scene of Accident Involving Death 316.027(1)(b)28.4 Obedience to Police and Fire Department Officials316.072(3) committed an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in [physical] [or] [mental] injury to (victim) . Amendments to criminal jury instructions Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(2)28.7 Amendments to criminal jury instructions Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Damage to Vehicle or Property316.061N/A NoneGrand theft — third degree812.014(2)(c) If the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant willfully failed to give any part of the “identifying information,” the State satisfies this element of the offense. Definitions. “Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. “Identifying information” means the name, address, vehicle registration number, and, if available and requested, the exhibition of the defendant’s license or permit to drive. Lesser Included Offenses INS. NO. CHILD ABUSE — 827.03(1) I further instruct you that § 316.061, Fla. Stat. A driver has the legal duty to immediately stop [his] [her] vehicle at the scene of the crash or as close to the scene of the crash as possible and provide “identifying information.” Reckless driving316.19228.5 Fleeing to elude316.1935(2)28.7 INS. NO. Petit theft — second degree812.014(3)(a) CATEGORY TWO Reckless Driving316.19228.5 b. (Defendant) knew or should have known of the injury to the person. If the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant willfully failed to give any part of the “identifying information,” the State satisfies this element of the offense. Definitions. “Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. “Identifying information” means the name, address, vehicle registration number, and, if available and requested, the exhibition of the defendant’s license or permit to drive. Lesser Included Offenses CATEGORY TWO Obedience to Police and Fire Department Officials316.072(3) Reckless driving316.19228.5 Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(3)(b)28.81 6. ( Defendant ), knowing [he][she] had been ordered to stop by a law enforcement officer, [willfully refused or failed to stop [his][her]vehicle in compliance with the order to stop][and after having stopped in knowing compliance with the order to stop, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude the law enforcement officer.] Aggravated Fleeing 316.1935(4)(a)28.85 3. The law enforcement officer was in an authorized law enforcement patrol vehicle with agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle and with siren and lights activated. FLA.STAT. Fleeing to elude316.1935(1)28.6 7. As a result of ( defendant ) fleeing or eluding, [he] [she] caused [an injury to] [damage to the property of] (name of victim ). a. willfully refused or failed to stop the vehicle in compliance with the order b. having stopped the vehicle, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude the officer. Obedience to Police and Fire Department Officials316.072(3) Comment 28.81 FLEEING TO ELUDE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (Siren and lights activated with high speed or reckless driving causing serious bodily injury or death) § 316.1935(3)(b), Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Fleeing to Elude a Law Enforcement Officer, the State must prove the following five elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) was operating a vehicle upon a street or highway in Florida. Give 2a or 2b as applicable . 2. (Defendant) , knowing [he] [she] had been directed to stop by a duly authorized law enforcement officer, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude a law enforcement officer. a. willfully refused or failed to stop the vehicle in compliance with the order. b. having stopped the vehicle, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude the officer. DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY — MANAGING AND TRAFFICKING — 812.019(2) Aggravated Fleeing 316.1935(4)(a)28.84 CATEGORY TWO This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], and in 2007, by adding the Inferences in § 812.022(2)-(6), Fla. Stat. and 2011. 16.3 CHILD ABUSE § 827.03(1), Fla._Stat. To prove the crime of Child Abuse, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (Defendant) knowingly or willfully: Give as applicable. Leaving Scene of Accident Involving Injury316.027(1)(a)28.4 Leaving Scene of Accident Involving Injury316.027(1)(a)28.4 I further instruct you that § 316.027, Fla. Stat. A driver has the legal duty to immediately stop [his] [her] vehicle at the scene of the crash or as close to the scene of the crash as possible and provide “identifying information.” FLEEING TO ELUDE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER — 316.1935(3)(b) Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(2)28.7 CATEGORY TWO Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(1)28.6 Comments For the category two lesser included offense of Obedience to Police, see Koch v. State, 39 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). This instruction was adopted in 2008 [ SC07-1851, January 10, 2008 976 So. 2d 1081 ] and 2011. 28.85 AGGRAVATED FLEEING OR ELUDING (Leaving a Crash Involving Damage to a Vehicle or Property then Causing Injury or Property Damage to Another) § 316.1935(4)(a) and § 316.061, Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding, the State must prove the following seven elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) was the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash resulting only in damage [to a vehicle] [to property other than a vehicle] which was driven or attended by a person. 2. (Defendant) knew or should have known that [he] [she] was involved in a crash. 3. (Defendant) knew or should have known of the damage to [the vehicle] [the attended property]. 4. (Defendant) willfully failed to stop at the scene of the crash or as close to the crash as possible and remain there until [he] [she] had given “identifying information” to the [driver][person attending the damaged property] and to any police officer investigating the crash. 5. A duly authorized law enforcement officer ordered (defendant) to stop. 6. (Defendant) , knowing [he] [she] had been ordered to stop by a law enforcement officer, [willfully refused or failed to stop [his] [her] vehicle in compliance with the order to stop] [and after having stopped in knowing compliance with the order to stop, willfully fled in a vehicle in an attempt to elude the law enforcement officer]. 7. As a result of ( defendant ) fleeing or eluding, [he] [she] caused [injury to] [damage to the property of] (name of victim) . CATEGORY ONE I further instruct you that § 316.061, Fla. Stat. A driver has the legal duty to immediately stop [his] [her] vehicle at the scene of the crash or as close to the scene of the crash as possible and provide “identifying information.” Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(3)(a)28.8 4. During the course of the fleeing or the attempt to elude, (defendant) drove at high speed or in any manner demonstrating a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], and in 2007, by adding the Inferences in § 812.022(2)-(6), Fla. Stat. and 2011. 14.3 DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY (ORGANIZING) § 812.019(2), Fla.Stat. To prove the crime of Dealing in Stolen Property (Organizing), the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) [initiated] [organized] [planned] [financed] [directed] [managed] [supervised] the theft of (property alleged) . 2. (Defendant) trafficked in the (property alleged) . Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below the fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(4), Fla. Stat. Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, out of the regular course of business or without the usual indicia of ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that it had been stolen. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(5), Fla. Stat. Proof that a dealer who regularly deals in used property possesses stolen property, upon which a name and phone number of a person other than the offeror of the property are conspicuously displayed, gives rise to an inference that the dealer possessing the property knew or should have known that the property was stolen. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(6), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person was in possession of a stolen motor vehicle and that the ignition mechanism of the motor vehicle had been bypassed or the steering wheel locking mechanism had been broken or bypassed, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the stolen motor vehicle knew or should have known that the motor vehicle had been stolen. Give if jury is also instructed on theft for crime committed in same scheme or course of conduct. § 812.025, Fla. Stat. You will receive separate verdict forms for theft and dealing in stolen property, because the defendant is charged with both offenses. However, Florida law places limits on a jury’s authority to find the defendant guilty of both crimes. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed both offenses but conclude that the offenses occurred in a single scheme or course of criminal conduct, you are permitted to find the defendant guilty of one of the offenses, but not both. I cannot assist you in making this choice other than to define what constitutes a single scheme or course of conduct. Offenses of theft and dealing in stolen property which involve a single item or group of item(s) are part of a single scheme or course of criminal conduct unless the offenses are purposefully interrupted by a period of time or series of events that unquestionably separates one offense from the other. See Hall v. State, 826 So. 2d 268, 271 (Fla. 2002); Toson v. State, 864 So. 2d 552, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Definitions. § 812.012(3), Fla.Stat. “Property” means anything of value, and includes: real property, including things growing on, affixed to and found in land; tangible or intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, and claims; and services. §§ 812.012(6), 812.028(3), Fla. Stat. “Stolen property” means property that has been the subject of any criminally wrongful taking or if the property has not been stolen, that it was offered for sale to (defendant) as stolen property. § 812.012(7), Fla. Stat. “Traffic” means: to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise dispose of property; and to buy, receive, possess, obtain control of or use property with the intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise dispose of that property. If the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant willfully failed to give any part of the “identifying information” or willfully failed to give reasonable assistance, the State satisfies this element of the offense. Definitions. “Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. “Identifying information” means the name, address, vehicle registration number, and, if available and requested, the exhibition of the defendant’s license or permit to drive. “Reasonable assistance” includes carrying or making arrangement to carry the injured person to a physician or hospital for medical treatment. Lesser Included Offenses CATEGORY ONECATEGORY TWOFLA. STAT.INS. NO. Comment Comment For the category two lesser included offense of Obedience to Police, see Koch v. State, 39 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). This instruction was adopted in 2000 [765 So. 2d 692] and amended in 2008 [ 976 So 2d 1081] and 2011. Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(3)(a)28.8 Definitions. “Operator” means any person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the highway [or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle]. “Street or highway” means the entire width between boundary lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the public for purposes of vehicular traffic. “Vehicle” means every device, in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. “Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Fleeing to Elude LEO316.1935(2)28.7 Obedience to Police and Fire Department Officials316.072(3) FLA.STAT. Comments For the category two lesser included offense of Obedience to Police, see Koch v. State, 39 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). This instruction was adopted in 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081] and 2011.last_img read more

Office/Industrial: Money in the Market

first_imgAs recent as two years ago, commercial foreclosures were affecting the markets and underlying property values. Then talk surfaced that the “blue blood” money was back and looking to make deals.Fast forward to 2013: Is this still the case?“In regards to office and industrial, the ‘blue blood’ is very active in the marketplace,” says Todd Jarman, senior vice president Commercial Real Estate for BBVA Compass. “The recent announcement of joint ventures with Clarion Partners (and Wentworth Property) and Walton Street Capital (and Everest Holdings) continue a string of similar headlines we have seen more for many months now.Values are holding very well, Jarman says, and in many cases appreciating nicely. He adds the market has not seen the wave of commercial foreclosures that were expected a number of years ago. Given the strong demand for good product, he adds, lenders holding distressed properties have instead opted to either entertain short-sales, note sales or direct borrower negotiations.“In regards to the current lending environment, our local banks are very hungry for stabilized product (both office and industrial), and we are beginning to see lenders take market/leasing risk on industrial buildings (big box /West side) — as several speculative developments are underway,” Jarman says. “Lenders continue to be hesitant on market/leasing risk on office, unless a very ‘special story’ exists. I would suspect that any new office development would require substantial pre-leasing — at least 50% or a number that could provide break even DSCR.”According to Scott Holland, managing partner, Keystone Commercial Capital, foreclosures have tailed off to a point that they are not having the downward pressure on values that they did over the past few years.“I believe the market has found a floor and while there are still good values to be found in the market, the increasing transaction activity is bringing buyers back into the market as they can begin to feel comfortable with where the floor is and can focus on creating value as the market begin to resurge.“As for money, I believe there is a significant amount of various equity capital (institutional, wealthy private and true entrepreneurial investors) in the market looking for value creation opportunities,” he says, “These markets appear to be in the early stages of recovery and everyone is trying to get an investment stake in the ground in order to enjoy the market lift that traditionally follows a significant down market — and what a down market it was.But just as with the abundance of equity capital, there is an abundance of debt capital.  While the sheer volume of both equity and debt capital can’t be disputed, their adherence to fundamentals at this stage of the recovery is also clear.“The not-so-distant memory of bad buys and bad loans will continue to keep both of these capital sources disciplined in their approach to the business for the reasonable foreseeable future, Holland says.Commercial foreclosures are waning and CMBS special servicers have the bulk of what is available, says Jaclyn Noel, senior VP and private banker at Wells Fargo.“The process with these groups takes longer because of the layers of legality,” she says. “Bank inventories are down and the economy is improving. Capitalization rates for these property types are normalizing.Capital is flowing from different sources both locally and internationally, especially from Canadian investors.“All the usual suspects are active again: banks, CMBS, life companies, pension funds, finance companies, private placements. Our Private Bank is actively providing commercial real estate investor financing.”The Metro Phoenix office market remains very soft due to over-supply and weak absorption, says Vicki Williams, senior VP Commercial Real Estate at Alliance Bank of Arizona. Leasing activity, she says, consists primarily of tenants moving from one submarket to another and/or moving up from Class B properties to Class A properties.“Institutional capital is available to acquire trophy, stabilized Class A properties only, which trade at low cap rates,” Williams says.The market for Class B properties is the most active, according to Williams. Buyers for stabilized — or relatively stabilized —  Class B properties include investment funds and private REITs who partner with pension funds. These assets are selling at higher cap rates, which is reflective of those investors looking for risk adjusted returns.“They do not anticipate rents to trend upwards in the short term and therefore plan on a longer hold strategy of 7 years or more,” she says. “Truly value-ad, distressed, multi-tenant office properties are being acquired by buyers willing to take more risk for a higher potential return. These investors are Canadian investors, individual investors and opportunity funds.“Financing for these properties continues to be difficult to find due to the higher risk and lack of cash flow, as these value-ad properties have significant vacancy and may also need some rehab work. They are being acquired at very favorable prices, often from a lender.”These investors’ strategy, Williams adds, is to lease up the properties at the current, low rental rates and then sell them at lower cap rate within a 3-year time frame. Multi-tenant medical office is the favored property type, though well located multi-tenant office properties in the Southeast Valley, the Camelback corridor and North Scottsdale are also trading.“While the office market is expected to remain soft for the next several years, the industrial market has been strengthening,” Williams says. “Institutional investors continue to prefer big box, single-tenant properties.  Life insurance companies are starting to invest in new, speculative construction of big box space based on the strong absorption in this segment seen in the past couple of years.“Multi-tenant, small bay industrial properties are being acquired by private investment companies consisting of ‘friends and family investors.’ This Class B market is the most active.”last_img read more

Manning up: Study confirms men overcompensate when their masculinity is threatened

first_imgThe study found that male college students who were given falsely low results on a handgrip strength test exaggerated their height by three-quarters of an inch on average, reported having more romantic relationships, claimed to be more aggressive and athletic, and showed less interest in stereotypically feminine consumer products.By contrast, men who received average score results, and whose masculinity was therefore not threatened, did not exaggerate those characteristics. The findings, researchers say, underscore the pressure men feel to live up to gender stereotypes and the ways in which they might reinstate a threatened masculinity.‘We know that being seen as masculine is very important for a lot of men,’ said lead author Sapna Cheryan, a UW associate professor of psychology. ‘We discovered that the things that men were using to assert their masculinity were the very things that are used as signals of identity.’The research involved male students at Stanford University, where Cheryan received her doctorate in psychology. The students were told they were participating in research on how exertion impacts decision-making and were asked to squeeze a handheld device with each hand.Researchers marked their scores on sheets that showed bogus bell curves representing male and female results, with the female curve clearly lower than the male one. Participants were scored either in the middle of the female or the male curve, suggesting that their grip was either weak or average.They were then asked to fill out a questionnaire asking about their height, number of previous relationships, various personality traits and their interest in products that skewed male or female, along with ‘distracter questions’ about things like college major that were intended to allay potential suspicion about the study.Cheryan said the consistent exaggeration about height among the group who thought they scored lower was particularly surprising.‘Height is something you think would be fixed, but how tall you say you are is malleable, at least for men,’ she said.Though the study focused exclusively on men, Cheryan noted that women also feel pressure to live up to gender ideals of femininity, such as being people-focused and nurturing. If women believe they are falling short of those expectations, Cheryan said, they might make choices with potentially negative consequences to demonstrate that they fit gender norms — for example, avoiding classes in traditionally male fields such as science and technology.Cheryan got the idea for the experiments from a men’s fitness magazine she was reading while working out at the gym several years ago. The magazine had a feature that asked men on the street how much they could bench press and then brought them into a gym to put their statements to the test.Most couldn’t bench what they claimed they could, and that got Cheryan thinking: What would those men do, she wondered, now that their masculinity was threatened? Would they acknowledge that they weren’t as strong as they perhaps thought? Try to bolster their manliness in response?So Cheryan devised the handgrip experiment and a second one that required a male group of students to take a computer-based masculinity test with multiple-choice questions about consumer preferences and personal attributes.In the second experiment, the participants were told the median score on the test was 72 out of 100, with 100 being ‘completely masculine,’ and were randomly given a score of 26 or 73. They were then asked about a range of products they could receive as compensation. As with the handgrip experiment, the participants who thought they scored lower were less interested in more feminine consumer products.‘This research shows that men are under very strong prescriptive norms to be a certain way, and they work hard to correct the image they project when their masculinity is under threat,’ said co-author Benoît Monin, a professor of organizational behavior and psychology at Stanford UniversityThe findings might seem amusing, but other studies have found that men compensate for a lack of masculinity in ways that aren’t as innocuous. Men with baby faces, for example, were more likely to have assertive and hostile personalities and commit crimes than their more chiseled counterparts. Men who were told they scored low on masculinity tests were more likely to act aggressively, harass women and belittle other men.Additionally, unemployed men were more likely to instigate violence against women, and men who were not their household’s primary breadwinner were less willing to share in housework duties.Identifying the various strategies men use when their masculinity is threatened, Cheryan said, can help with understanding male behavior in real-life situations.‘Men have a lot of power in our society, and what this study shows is that some decisions can be influenced by how they’re feeling about their masculinity in the moment,’ she said.Other co-authors are Zach Katagiri and Jessica Schwartz Cameron of Stanford University. Pinterest Share on Twitter From the old Charles Atlas ads showing a scrawny male having sand kicked in his face to sitcom clichés of henpecked husbands, men have long faced pressure to live up to ideals of masculinity.Societal norms dictating that men should be masculine are powerful. And new University of Washington research finds that men who believe they fall short of those ideals might be prompted to reassert their masculinity in small but significant ways.Published last week in Social Psychology, the research sought to understand how men respond when their masculinity is threatened, and looked at two specific strategies they might employ: playing up their manliness and rejecting feminine preferences. Sharecenter_img Email Share on Facebook LinkedInlast_img read more

As DRC Ebola cases grow, expert sees parallels to Guinea

first_imgIn an external situation report released today, the World Health Organization (WHO) said two new suspected Ebola cases are being investigated in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and a US expert says events are unfolding in ways reminiscent of Guinea in 2014 at the onset of a massive West Africa outbreak.The new cases are in Azande and Nambwa, both in the Likati health district. There are now 21 suspected cases of the deadly virus, and 3 deaths.A map accompanying the situation report shows Azande located far east of the Likati health district, on the border of South Sudan. But the written report only names Central African Republic as a country bordering the districts with suspected Ebola.In addition to two new cases, the WHO’s report says that 400 close contacts of patients are now being monitored, a steep rise from 125 contacts reported yesterday. Five new blood samples are also being tested now at the Institut National de Recherche Biomedicale (INRB) laboratory in Kinshasa, and INRB is deploying two mobile laboratories to Buta and Likati.For now, the number of confirmed Ebola infections remains at two.Three countries have now implemented entry screening at airports (Nigeria, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe).Similarities to GuineaThe case in Azande concerns Ebola expert Dan Lucey, MD, MPH, a microbiologist and immunologist with Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. Lucey said that any potential case on the border of South Sudan is worrisome, because cross-border spread in that part of Africa could have great consequences for controlling and monitoring the outbreak.Lucey said that he saw some similarities between what’s happening in DRC and what happened in Guinea in 2014.”Both outbreaks began in a remote location, and both had cases presenting without traditional hemorrhagic features,” said Lucey in an interview. Moreover, Lucey said that a report from the WHO’s African Regional Office dated May 12 denoted a cluster of illnesses in Bangbo, which is near Azande.Lucey said his curiosity was piqued, and in searching Bangbo he discovered a FluTrackers post describing 34 deadly cases of diarrhea on Apr 7 and 8. FluTrackers is an infectious disease news message board. He is careful to note that the illnesses occurred in a region familiar with cholera and meningitis, but if the cluster was indeed Ebola, the outbreak could be more widely spread than previously thought.National budget of $8 million setAlso in today’s situation report was the first mention of the DRC government’s working budget of about $8 million US dollars for the national fight the outbreak.In addition, the WHO has donated 3,000 sets of personal protective equipment (PPE) to Likati and 100 body bags. Its office in the DRS has finalized a response plan and $1.4 million budget.See also:May 17 WHO situation reportMay 12 WHO African region weekly bulletinApr 17 FluTrackers postlast_img read more

Daily Postcard: Full Harvest Moon Aglow Among Branches

first_imgThe full moon spotted in the early hours Thursday in White Rock. October has two full moons this year: the full Harvest Moon of Oct. 1 and the full Hunter’s Moon Oct. 31—Halloween! Halloween’s full moon will be extra special, since it will be the second of the month and, therefore, a “Blue Moon’. Despite all the creative Halloween full moon pictures, a full moon occurring on Halloween is not a common occurrence and only happens every 18 to 19 years. Halloween—also known as All Hallows’ Eve—always occurs Oct. 31; it’s the only day of the week that changes from year to year. According to NASA, a blue moon occurs about seven times every 19 years. Source: Farmers Almanac. Photo by Nancy Ann Hibbslast_img