Notice

first_img NOTICE Legislative Action Under Rule 2-9.3 (b) – (e), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, active members of the Bar may file a specific objection to any legislative position adopted by the Board of Governors.Objections properly filed within 45 days of this News issue will be considered for a refund of that portion of mandatory membership fees applicable to the contested legislative position, within an additional 45 days. The Bar’s governing board has the option to grant the appropriate refund to an objector or to refer the matter to arbitration.The arbitration process will determine solely whether the legislative position is within those acceptable activities for which compulsory membership fees may be used under applicable constitutional law. The objecting member’s fees allocable to the contested legislative position will be escrowed promptly upon receipt of the objection, and any refund will bear legal interest.Any active member may provide written notice to the executive director of The Florida Bar, setting forth an objection to a particular legislative position. Failure to object within 45 days of this News issue will constitute a waiver of any right to object to a particular legislative position within this notice.The policy requires the Bar to notice such legislative positions in the next available News issue following their adoption.Pursuant to Standing Board Policy 9.20, on January 28, 2005, the Board of Governors approved the following positions of The Florida Bar:12. Supports increases in state judicial salaries consistent with the 2005 recommendations of the Florida Conferences of District Court of Appeal, Circuit Court, and County Court judges. First Circuit YLD board seat open The Florida Bar’s Young Lawyers Division is now accepting applications to fill a vacancy on its board of governors representing the First Judicial Circuit.The successful candidate will fill a two-year term beginning June 24.Anyone interested in being considered for appointment to this seat should send a letter of interest and a brief resume to Austin Newberry, YLD administrator, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson St., Tallahassee 32399-2300, no later than March 1. Wakefield petitions for Florida Bar reinstatement Pursuant to Rule 3-7.10, Stanley Craig Wakefield has petitioned the Supreme Court for Bar reinstatement.Wakefield was suspended for six months pursuant to a February 19, 2002, court order for various trust account violations and failing to properly supervise his nonlawyer staff.Anyone having knowledge bearing on Wakefield’s fitness or qualification to resume the practice of law should contact Kenneth Bryk, Bar Counsel, 1200 Edgewater Dr., Orlando 32804-6314, (407) 425-5424. Manslaughter instruction amendments At the request of the Florida Supreme Court, the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases has submitted to the court a report proposing a comment to be added to Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 7.7, Manslaughter. The court invites all interested persons to comment on the committee’s proposal, which is reproduced in full below, as well as online at www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/proposed.shtml. An original and nine paper copies of all comments must be filed with the court on or before March 17, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the committee chair, Judge Dedee S. Costello, Bay County Courthouse, P.O. Box 1089, Panama City 32402-1089, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. Electronic copies of all comments also must be filed in accordance with the court’s administrative order In Re: Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-84 (Sept. 13, 2004). Please label envelope to avoid erasure. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES – INSTRUCTION IN MANSLAUGHTER CASES, CASE NO. SC04-2488 PROPOSED COMMENT 7.7 MANSLAUGHTER § 782.07, Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Victim) is dead. Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof 2. a. (Defendant) intentionally caused the death of (victim) . b. (Defendant) intentionally procured the death of (victim) . c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant) . However, the defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide as I have previously explained those terms. Give only if 2b alleged and proved To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something. Give only if 2c alleged and proved I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Give only if 2(a) alleged and proved, and manslaughter is being defined as a lesser included offense of first degree premeditated murder In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated intent to cause death. Trial judges should carefully study Eversley v. State, 748 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1999) in any manslaughter case in which causation is an issue. February 15, 2005 Regular News Noticelast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *