Florida Theft Jury Instructions: What Every Defendant Should Understand Before Trial

If you have been accused of theft, retail theft, dealing in stolen property, or another property crime, understanding how a jury will be instructed is one of the best ways to understand how your case may ultimately be decided.

As a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and former prosecutor, I have spent decades trying criminal cases throughout Florida. Jury instructions are one of the most important documents in every trial because they define the law the jurors must follow during deliberations. They identify the elements the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt and help ensure that jurors decide the case based on the law rather than speculation.

If you would like to learn more about my experience representing clients throughout Tampa Bay and Central Florida, visit my bio:

https://www.centrallaw.com/lawyers/w-f-casey-ebsary-jr

Why Jury Instructions Matter

Every criminal trial eventually reaches the point where the judge instructs the jury on the law.

Those instructions become the roadmap for deliberations. Jurors are not asked whether they believe someone probably committed a crime. Instead, they are instructed to determine whether every required legal element has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

From a defense perspective, every word matters.

During trial preparation, I study the applicable jury instructions long before opening statements. They influence how witnesses are questioned, what evidence receives attention, and which legal defenses deserve emphasis.

Theft Cases Often Turn on Small Details

Many people assume a theft case is straightforward.

In reality, these cases frequently involve disputed facts, conflicting testimony, questions regarding ownership, valuation disputes, identity issues, or disagreements over intent.

A seemingly simple allegation may become significantly more complicated once the required legal elements are carefully examined.

That is why experienced trial preparation is essential.

Florida Theft Jury Instructions Covered

The Florida Standard Jury Instructions include numerous theft-related offenses. While each offense has unique legal elements, many involve questions concerning possession, ownership, intent, or value.

How I Analyze Theft Cases

Every theft prosecution is different.

Rather than assuming the police investigation is complete or accurate, I independently review the available evidence, witness statements, surveillance footage, electronic records, photographs, and physical evidence. My objective is to determine whether the evidence actually satisfies each element that the prosecution must prove.

In many cases, careful preparation reveals issues that are not immediately obvious from the arrest report alone.

Common Areas I Examine

Every Element Must Be Proven

One of the most important concepts in criminal law is that the prosecution bears the burden of proof.

Jurors do not decide whether someone seems suspicious. They determine whether every required legal element has been established beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence admitted during trial.

From my perspective as a trial lawyer, identifying weaknesses in those elements often becomes the foundation of an effective defense strategy.

Retail Theft Cases Are Often More Complex Than They Appear

Retail theft cases frequently involve surveillance video, electronic inventory systems, employee testimony, and store security procedures.

Although many people assume video resolves every factual dispute, recordings do not always capture every relevant event or clearly establish intent. Witness observations and the surrounding circumstances may still become important issues during trial.

Each case requires an individualized review rather than assumptions based solely on an arrest report.

Have Questions About a Theft Charge?

Being investigated or charged with theft does not automatically determine the outcome of your case. Early evaluation of the evidence and the applicable jury instructions can make a significant difference in developing an effective defense strategy.

If you would like to discuss your case with me, learn about my trial experience, or schedule a confidential consultation, visit:

https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us

Florida Theft Jury Instructions: What Every Defendant Should Understand Before Trial

If you have been accused of theft, retail theft, dealing in stolen property, or another property crime, understanding how a jury will be instructed is one of the best ways to understand how your case may ultimately be decided.

As a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and former prosecutor, I have spent decades trying criminal cases throughout Florida. Jury instructions are one of the most important documents in every trial because they define the law the jurors must follow during deliberations. They identify the elements the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt and help ensure that jurors decide the case based on the law rather than speculation.

If you would like to learn more about my experience representing clients throughout Tampa Bay and Central Florida, visit my bio:

Why Jury Instructions Matter

Every criminal trial eventually reaches the point where the judge instructs the jury on the law.

Those instructions become the roadmap for deliberations. Jurors are not asked whether they believe someone probably committed a crime. Instead, they are instructed to determine whether every required legal element has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

From a defense perspective, every word matters.

During trial preparation, I study the applicable jury instructions long before opening statements. They influence how witnesses are questioned, what evidence receives attention, and which legal defenses deserve emphasis.

Theft Cases Often Turn on Small Details

Many people assume a theft case is straightforward.

In reality, these cases frequently involve disputed facts, conflicting testimony, questions regarding ownership, valuation disputes, identity issues, or disagreements over intent.

A seemingly simple allegation may become significantly more complicated once the required legal elements are carefully examined.

That is why experienced trial preparation is essential.

Florida Theft Jury Instructions Covered

The Florida Standard Jury Instructions include numerous theft-related offenses. While each offense has unique legal elements, many involve questions concerning possession, ownership, intent, or value.

How I Analyze Theft Cases

Every theft prosecution is different.

Rather than assuming the police investigation is complete or accurate, I independently review the available evidence, witness statements, surveillance footage, electronic records, photographs, and physical evidence. My objective is to determine whether the evidence actually satisfies each element that the prosecution must prove.

In many cases, careful preparation reveals issues that are not immediately obvious from the arrest report alone.

Common Areas I Examine

Every Element Must Be Proven

One of the most important concepts in criminal law is that the prosecution bears the burden of proof.

Jurors do not decide whether someone seems suspicious. They determine whether every required legal element has been established beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence admitted during trial.

From my perspective as a trial lawyer, identifying weaknesses in those elements often becomes the foundation of an effective defense strategy.

Retail Theft Cases Are Often More Complex Than They Appear

Retail theft cases frequently involve surveillance video, electronic inventory systems, employee testimony, and store security procedures.

Although many people assume video resolves every factual dispute, recordings do not always capture every relevant event or clearly establish intent. Witness observations and the surrounding circumstances may still become important issues during trial.

Each case requires an individualized review rather than assumptions based solely on an arrest report.

Have Questions About a Theft Charge?

Being investigated or charged with theft does not automatically determine the outcome of your case. Early evaluation of the evidence and the applicable jury instructions can make a significant difference in developing an effective defense strategy.

If you would like to discuss your case with me, learn about my trial experience, or schedule a confidential consultation, visit:

Part 2 will continue with:

• Detailed discussion of each theft-related jury instruction category
• Trial strategy from my perspective
• Comparison chart
• 10 frequently asked questions with detailed answers
• Final conclusion and closing CTA.

part 2

How Different Theft Charges Present Different Trial Issues

Although these offenses are grouped together within Florida’s theft jury instructions, each presents unique factual and legal issues. As a trial lawyer, I never assume that one defense strategy fits every case. Instead, I tailor my preparation to the specific allegations, the available evidence, and the elements the State must prove.

Some cases focus on ownership. Others depend on identity, intent, valuation, or whether the prosecution can establish every required element beyond a reasonable doubt. My job is to carefully evaluate each issue before a jury is ever selected.

Theft

Traditional theft cases often appear straightforward, but they rarely are. Property ownership, permission, intent, mistaken identity, and valuation may all become contested issues during trial.

As a former prosecutor, I understand how these cases are investigated. As a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, I also understand how those investigations can leave unanswered questions that deserve careful examination before anyone reaches a verdict.

Dealing in Stolen Property

These allegations often involve transactions occurring after an alleged theft. The prosecution may rely upon documents, electronic communications, pawn records, surveillance footage, or witness testimony.

Whether the evidence establishes the required elements depends entirely on the facts presented during trial. I avoid assumptions and instead analyze the reliability and admissibility of every piece of evidence available.

Retail Theft

Retail theft cases frequently include loss prevention personnel, surveillance systems, inventory records, and employee testimony.

Video evidence can be helpful, but it does not always tell the entire story. Camera angles, image quality, timing, and what occurs outside the camera’s field of view may all become important considerations.

Credit and Debit Card Cases

Cases involving stolen credit or debit cards often include electronic records and financial documentation.

The existence of a card alone does not answer every legal question that may arise during trial. Every case requires careful review of the surrounding circumstances, witness testimony, and available evidence.

Construction Fund Cases

Misapplication of construction funds presents a very different type of criminal prosecution.

These cases may involve contracts, payment records, banking documents, accounting issues, and business practices. Because every construction project is unique, I carefully review the available documentation before reaching conclusions about the evidence.

My Trial Preparation Process

Preparing for trial involves much more than reading the arrest report.

I review discovery, analyze witness statements, examine photographs and videos, evaluate documentary evidence, and compare the prosecution’s evidence against the legal elements contained in the applicable jury instructions. Throughout that process, I continually ask one fundamental question:

Can every required element actually be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

That question shapes every strategic decision made throughout the case.

Understanding the Trial Process

Arrest

   │

Investigation

   │

Discovery

   │

Pretrial Motions

   │

Jury Selection

   │

Presentation of Evidence

   │

Closing Arguments

   │

Jury Instructions

   │

Jury Deliberations

   │

Verdict

The jury instructions become especially important near the end of trial because they provide the legal framework the jurors use during deliberations. Throughout the trial, I prepare with those instructions in mind.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why are jury instructions important?

Jury instructions explain the law that jurors must apply during deliberations. Rather than deciding a case based on opinion or emotion, jurors are instructed to determine whether the prosecution has proven every required legal element beyond a reasonable doubt. As a trial lawyer, I study these instructions from the beginning of every case because they influence trial strategy.

2. Do jury instructions determine whether someone is guilty?

No. The jury determines the facts after hearing the evidence presented during trial. Jury instructions simply provide the legal standards that jurors must apply when evaluating that evidence.

3. Can jury instructions change over time?

Yes. Florida’s Standard Jury Instructions are periodically revised. Because revisions occur, I verify that I am working from the applicable version rather than relying on outdated materials.

4. Does every theft case go to trial?

No. Many criminal cases resolve before trial. However, I prepare every case as though it could ultimately be presented to a jury because thorough preparation places my clients in the strongest possible position.

5. Why does property value matter?

Property value can affect how a theft offense is charged. Because valuation may become an important issue in some prosecutions, I carefully review the available evidence supporting the alleged value.

6. What evidence is commonly used in theft cases?

Evidence may include witness testimony, surveillance video, photographs, receipts, electronic records, financial documents, or physical evidence. The type of evidence varies significantly from case to case.

7. Can surveillance video resolve every issue?

Not necessarily. Video may provide important evidence, but it may not capture every relevant event or answer every factual question. Each recording should be evaluated in the context of all the evidence presented.

8. Why is trial preparation so important?

Effective trial preparation allows me to identify strengths, weaknesses, inconsistencies, and legal issues before the case reaches a jury. Careful preparation often provides opportunities that might otherwise be overlooked.

9. Should someone wait until trial to hire a lawyer?

Every case is different. Generally speaking, obtaining experienced legal advice as early as possible allows more time to evaluate the evidence, investigate the facts, and develop an appropriate defense strategy.

10. Why choose a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer?

Board Certification recognizes attorneys who have met rigorous standards established by The Florida Bar in their specialty area. If you would like more information about my qualifications, I invite you to review my professional background and experience on my attorney biography page.

Experience Matters

Over the course of my career, I have prosecuted criminal cases, defended individuals accused of crimes, and tried numerous jury trials. Those experiences have given me insight into how criminal cases develop from investigation through verdict.

Every case deserves an individualized evaluation. I do not believe in one-size-fits-all defenses because every client, every investigation, and every set of facts is different.

Speak With W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr.

If you are facing a theft charge or are under criminal investigation, understanding how the jury instructions may affect your case is an important first step. I would be honored to discuss your situation, explain the criminal process, and help you evaluate your legal options.

Learn more about my background and trial experience:

https://www.centrallaw.com/lawyers/w-f-casey-ebsary-jr

To schedule a confidential consultation, please contact my office:

https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us

Editorial Note: This article is intended as general educational information and should not be interpreted as legal advice. I have intentionally avoided making statements that I cannot verify with complete confidence.This article provides my original analysis and practical observations based on my experience as a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer.

Complete Text Of Florida Theft Jury Instructions

14.1 THEFT

§ 812.014, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Theft, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) knowingly and unlawfully [obtained or used] [endeavored to obtain or to use] the (property alleged) of (victim).

Give 2a or 2b or both as applicable. 

2. [He] [She] did so with intent to, either temporarily or permanently,

a. deprive (victim) of [his] [her] right to the property or any benefit from it.  

[or]

b. appropriate the property of (victim) to [his] [her] own use or to the use of any person not entitled to it.

Give as applicable.

If you find the defendant guilty of Theft, you must also determine if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a. the value of the property taken was $100,000 or more.

b. the value of the property taken was $20,000 or more but less than $100,000. 

c. the value of the property taken was $10,000 or more but less than $20,000. 

d. the value of the property taken was $5,000 or more but less than $10,000. 

e. the value of the property taken was $750 or more but less than $5,000. 

f. the value of the property taken was $100 or more but less than $750. 

g. the value of the property taken was less than $100. 

h. the property taken was a semitrailer that was deployed by a law enforcement officer. 

i. the property taken was cargo valued at $50,000 or more that has entered the stream of commerce from the shipper’s loading platform to the consignee’s receiving dock. 

j. the property taken was cargo valued at less than $50,000 that has entered the stream of commerce from the shipper’s loading platform to the consignee’s receiving dock.

k. the property taken was emergency medical equipment valued at $300 or more that was taken from [a licensed facility] [an emergency medical aircraft or vehicle].

l. the property taken was law enforcement equipment valued at $300 or more that was taken from an authorized emergency vehicle. 

m. (defendant), individually or in concert with one or more persons, coordinated the activities of another in committing the theft and the value of the property taken was more than $3,000.

n. the stolen property was [a will, codicil, or other testamentary instrument] [a firearm] [a motor vehicle] [a commercially farmed animal] [an aquaculture species raised at a certified aquaculture facility] [a fire extinguisher that, at the time of the taking, was installed in a building for the purpose of fire prevention and control] [2,000 or more pieces of citrus fruit] [taken from a legally posted construction site] [a stop sign] [anhydrous ammonia] [a controlled substance. Under Florida law, (name of controlled substance) is a controlled substance.] 

o. the value of the property taken was $40 or more but less than $750 and was taken from [a dwelling] [the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling].

p. the value of the property taken was $750 or more and was taken from [a dwelling] [the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling].

q. the property was taken from [more than 20 dwellings] [the unenclosed curtilage of more than 20 dwellings].

r. the value of the property taken was less than $40 and was taken from [a dwelling] [the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling].

Give if applicable but only in cases of grand theft. § 812.014(2)(a)3, Fla. Stat.

If you find the defendant guilty of theft, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether: 

s. in the course of committing the theft, (defendant) used a motor vehicle as an instrumentality, other than merely as a getaway vehicle, to assist in committing the theft and thereby damaged the real property of another.

t. in the course of committing the theft, (defendant) caused more than $1,000 in damage to the [real] [personal] property of another. 

State of emergency. Applies only to elements b, c, d, j, k and l above.

If you find (defendant) guilty of theft, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether:

u. the theft was committed within a county that was subject to a state of emergency that had been declared by the governor under Chapter 252, the “State Emergency Management Act” 

and

the perpetration of the theft was facilitated by conditions arising from the emergency. 

Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat.

Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current in respect to name, address, place of employment, or other material aspect in connection with the leasing of personal property or failed to return leased property within 72 hours of the termination of the leasing agreement, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the property was obtained or is now used with unlawful intent to commit theft.

§ 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. 

§ 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. Do not give unless there is evidence of the fair market value of the stolen property. Barfield v. State, 613 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

Definitions. Give if applicable.

§ 316.003, Fla. Stat.

“Authorized emergency vehicles” are vehicles of the fire department (fire patrol), police vehicles, and such ambulances and emergency vehicles of municipal departments, public service corporations operated by private corporations, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Health, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Corrections as are designated or authorized by their respective department or the chief of police of an incorporated city or any sheriff of any of the various counties.

§ 812.012(1), Fla. Stat.

“Cargo” means partial or entire shipments, containers, or cartons of property which are contained in or on a trailer, motortruck, aircraft, vessel, warehouse, freight station, freight consolidation facility, or air navigation facility.

§ 812.014(2), Fla. Stat.

“Conditions arising from the emergency” means civil unrest, power outages, curfews, voluntary or mandatory evacuations, or a reduction in the presence of or response time for first responders or homeland security personnel.

§ 810.011(2), Fla. Stat.; Dubose v. State, 210 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 2017).

“Dwelling” means a building [or conveyance] of any kind, whether such building [or conveyance] is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, together with the enclosed space of ground and outbuildings immediately surrounding it. [The enclosure need not be continuous as it may have an ungated opening for entering and exiting.] For purposes of theft, a “dwelling” includes an attached porch or attached garage. 

§ 812.014(2)(b)3, Fla. Stat.

“Emergency medical aircraft or vehicle” means any aircraft, ambulance or other vehicle used as an emergency medical service vehicle that has been issued a permit in accordance with Florida law.

§ 812.014(2)(b)3, Fla. Stat.

“Emergency medical equipment” means mechanical or electronic apparatus used to provide emergency service and care or to treat medical emergencies.

§ 395.002(9), Fla. Stat.

“Emergency services and care” means medical screening, examination, and evaluation by a physician, or other medically appropriate personnel under the supervision of a physician, to determine if an emergency medical condition exists, and if it does, the care, treatment, or surgery by a physician necessary to relieve or eliminate the emergency medical condition, within the service capability of the facility.

§ 812.014(2)(b)4, Fla. Stat., and § 943.10, Fla. Stat.

“Law enforcement equipment” means any property, device, or apparatus used by a law enforcement officer in the officer’s official business. A law enforcement officer is any person who is elected, appointed, or employed full time by any municipality or the state or any political subdivision thereof; who is vested with authority to bear arms and make arrests; and whose primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime or the enforcement of the penal, criminal, traffic, or highway laws of the state. This definition includes all certified supervisory and command personnel whose duties include, in whole or in part, the supervision, training, guidance, and management responsibilities of full-time law enforcement officers, part-time law enforcement officers, or auxiliary law enforcement officers but does not include support personnel employed by the employing agency.

§ 810.09(2)(d), Fla. Stat.

If the construction site is greater than one acre in area, see § 810.09(2)(d)1, Fla. Stat., and § 810.011(5)(a), Fla. Stat.

A “legally posted construction site” means a construction site of one acre or less in area with a sign prominently placed on the property where the construction permits are located, in letters no less than two inches in height, that reads in substantially the following manner: “THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY.”

§ 395.002(16), Fla. Stat.

“Licensed facility” means a hospital, ambulatory surgical center, or mobile surgical facility licensed by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. See chapter 395, Fla. Stat.

Medrano v. State, 199 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); § 320.01, Fla. Stat. (Some of these terms have their own statutory definitions, which should be given if necessary.)

“Motor vehicle” means an automobile, motorcycle, truck, trailer, semitrailer, truck tractor and semitrailer combination, or any other vehicle operated on the roads of this state, used to transport persons or property, and propelled by power other than muscular power, but the term does not include traction engines, road rollers, motorized scooters, micromobility devices, personal delivery devices, mobile carriers, special mobile equipment, vehicles that run only upon a track, bicycles, electric bicycles, swamp buggies, or mopeds.

§ 810.09(1)(b), Fla. Stat.

“Unenclosed curtilage” means the unenclosed land or grounds, and any outbuildings, that are directly and intimately adjacent to and connected with the dwelling and necessary, convenient, and habitually used in connection with that dwelling.

§ 812.012(3), Fla. Stat. Give appropriate portions of the definition as needed.

“Obtains or uses” means any manner of

a. Taking or exercising control over property.

b. Making any unauthorized use, disposition, or transfer of property.

c. Obtaining property by fraud, willful misrepresentation of a future act, or false promise.

d. Conduct previously known as stealing; larceny; purloining; abstracting; embezzlement; misapplication; misappropriation; conversion; or obtaining money or property by false pretenses, fraud, deception; or other conduct similar in nature.

“Endeavor” means to attempt or try.

§ 812.012(4), Fla. Stat. Give appropriate portions of the definition as needed.

“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.] 

[services.]

§ 812.012(6), Fla. Stat. Give appropriate portions of the definition as needed.

“Services” means anything of value resulting from a person’s physical or mental labor or skill, or from the use, possession, or presence of property, and includes:

[repairs or improvements to property.]

[professional services.]

[private, public or government communication, transportation, power, water, or sanitation services.]

[lodging accommodations.]

[admissions to places of exhibition or entertainment.]

§ 812.012(10), Fla. Stat.

“Value” means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense, or if that value cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the offense.

If the exact value of the property cannot be ascertained, you should attempt to determine a minimum value. If you cannot determine the minimum value, you must find the value is less than $100.

Theft of an Instrument. Give if applicable.

In the case of a written instrument that does not have a readily ascertainable market value, such as a check, draft, or promissory note, the value is the amount due or collectible.

In the case of any other instrument that creates, releases, discharges or otherwise affects any valuable legal right, privilege, or obligation, the value is the greatest amount of economic loss that the owner of the instrument might reasonably suffer by virtue of the loss of the instrument.

Theft of a Trade Secret. Give if applicable.

The value of a trade secret that does not have a readily ascertainable market value is any reasonable value representing the damage to the owner suffered by reason of losing an advantage over those who do not know of or use the trade secret.

Theft Pursuant to One Scheme. Give if applicable.

Amounts of value of separate properties involved in thefts committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether the thefts are from the same person or several persons, may be added together to determine the total value of the theft.

Good faith defense. Give if applicable. Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State, 116 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

It is a defense to the charge of Theft if (defendant) had an honest, good faith belief that [he] [she] had the right to possess the (property alleged) of (victim). 

If you have a reasonable doubt about whether (defendant) had an honest, good faith belief, even though unreasonable or mistaken, that [he] [she] had the right to possess the (property alleged) of (victim), you should find [him] [her] not guilty of Theft.

If you find the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant did not have an honest, good faith belief that [he] [she] had the right to possess the (property alleged) of (victim), you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of Theft have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Give if the degree of theft is higher based on one or more priors. 

It is error to inform the jury of a prior theft conviction. If the charging document contains an allegation of one or more prior theft convictions, do not read that allegation and do not send the charging document into the jury room. If the defendant is found guilty of a theft, the historical fact of a previous conviction must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt in a bifurcated proceeding. State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000). 

A prior robbery conviction can be used as a predicate for felony petit theft. Grimes v. State, 724 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 

As of October 1, 2023, a second conviction for Grand Theft Firearm is a second degree felony ranked as a level 7 scoresheet offense. 

Now that you have found the defendant guilty of Theft, you must further determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was previously convicted [two or more times] of any [Theft] [Robbery] [Grand Theft of a Firearm]. 

Lesser Included Offenses

Because the jury will be answering an interrogatory on the value of the property stolen, there does not need to be an instruction on lesser included theft offenses based solely on value. 

GRAND THEFT — THIRD DEGREE (A MOTOR VEHICLE) —812.014(2)(c)6

FELONY PETIT THEFT — 812.014(3)(c)

Comments

As of January 2025, it is unclear whether a conviction, for purposes of increasing the degree of the theft, requires an adjudication of guilt. 

According to § 705.102, Fla. Stat., whenever any person finds lost or abandoned property, such person must report the description and location of the property to a law enforcement officer. Any person who unlawfully appropriates such lost or abandoned property to his or her own use commits Theft. In such cases, a special instruction will be required. 

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1987 [508 So. 2d 1221], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1992 [603 So. 2d 1175], 2003 [850 So. 2d 1272], 2005 [911 So. 2d 766 and 915 So. 2d 609], 2008 [986 So. 2d 563], 2013 [109 So. 3d 721], 2016 [190 So. 3d 614], 2018 [256 So. 3d 1316], 2020 [288 So. 3d 540], on October 2, 2020, on March 8, 2024, and on February 21, 2025.

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. Do not give unless there is evidence of the fair market value of the stolen property. Barfield v. State, 613 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

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.

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.

Give if both theft and dealing in stolen property are submitted to the jury:

You will receive separate verdict forms for theft and dealing in stolen property as the defendant was charged with both crimes.

If you find that the State has not proven theft and dealing in stolen property, then you are to find the defendant not guilty of both offenses.

If you find that the State has proven theft, but not dealing in stolen property, then you are to find the defendant guilty of theft and not guilty of dealing in stolen property.

If you find that the State has proven dealing in stolen property, but not theft, then you are to find the defendant guilty of dealing in stolen property and not guilty of theft.

If you find that the State has proven both theft and dealing in stolen property, you must then decide whether both offenses were in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. “One scheme or course of conduct” means that there was no meaningful disruption of the defendant’s conduct by either an interval of time or a set of circumstances. 

If you find that both theft and dealing in stolen property were proven by the State, and the offenses were not in connection with one scheme or course of conduct, then you are to find the defendant guilty of both theft and dealing in stolen property. 

If you find that both theft and dealing in stolen property were proven by the State, and the offenses were in connection with one scheme or course of conduct, then the defendant must be convicted of either theft or dealing in stolen property. In making your decision, you must determine whether the defendant is more of a common thief or more of a trafficker. This determination rests on the defendant’s intended use of the stolen property. The defendant is a “common thief” if [he][she] had the intent to appropriate the property to [his] [her] own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property. The defendant is a “trafficker” if [he][she] had the intent to traffic in the stolen property. If you find the defendant more of a “common thief,” then you are to find the defendant guilty of theft only. If you find the defendant more of a “trafficker,” then you are to find the defendant guilty of dealing in stolen property only.

Lesser Included Offenses

DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY — TRAFFICKING — 812.019(1)

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 2007 [962 So. 2d 310], 2013 [121 So. 3d 520], 2014 [140 So. 3d 992], and 2016.

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. Do not give unless there is evidence of the fair market value of the stolen property. Barfield v. State, 613 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

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.

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.

Lesser Included Offenses

DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY — MANAGING AND TRAFFICKING — 812.019(2)

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 2007 [962 So. 2d 310], and 2016.

14.4 RETAIL THEFT

§ 812.015(8)(c), Fla. Stat.*

To prove the crime of Retail Theft, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) 

Give one or more as applicable. 

a. took possession of or carried away [merchandise] [property] [money] [negotiable documents] from a merchant.

b. altered or removed a [label] [universal product code] [price tag] from merchandise.

c. transferred merchandise from one container to another.

d. removed a shopping cart from a merchant.

2. (Defendant) did so with the intent to deprive the merchant of possession, use, benefit, or full retail value of the [merchandise] [property] [money] [negotiable documents] [shopping cart].

3. (Defendant) [, acting individually or in concert with one or more other persons,] did so from more than one location within a 120-day period, and the total value of the [merchandise] [property] [money] [negotiable documents] [shopping cart] when added together was $750 or more. 

“Merchandise” means any personal property, capable of manual delivery, displayed, held, or offered for retail sale by a merchant.

“Merchant” means an owner or operator, or the agent, consignee, employee, lessee, or officer of an owner or operator, of any premises or apparatus used for retail purchase or sale of any merchandise.

“Value of merchandise” means the sale price of the merchandise at the time it was stolen or otherwise removed, depriving the owner of her or his lawful right to ownership and sale of said item.

Theft of an Instrument.

In the case of a written instrument that does not have a readily ascertainable market value, such as a check, draft, or promissory note, the value is the amount due or collectible.

In the case of any other instrument that creates, releases, discharges or otherwise affects any valuable legal right, privilege, or obligation, the value is the greatest amount of economic loss that the owner of the instrument might reasonably suffer by virtue of the loss of the instrument.

Give if applicable. Firearm. § 812.015(11), Fla. Stat. Retail Theft is bumped up to first degree felony if the defendant possessed a firearm during the commission of the crime.  

You must also determine whether the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed a firearm during the commission of the Retail Theft. 

A “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 another crime. An antique firearm is (insert definition in § 790.001, Fla. Stat.]. [A destructive device is (insert definition in § 790.001, Fla. Stat.].

To prove (defendant) “possessed” a firearm, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] [she] a) knew of the existence of the firearm; and b) intentionally exercised control over it. 

Control can be exercised over a firearm whether it is carried on a person, near a person, or in a completely separate location. Mere proximity to a firearm does not establish that the person intentionally exercised control over it in the absence of additional evidence. Control can be established by proof that (defendant) had direct personal power to control the firearm or the present ability to direct its control by another. 

Give if applicable. 

Possession of a firearm may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess it.

Prior conviction. It is error to inform the jury of a prior Retail Theft conviction. If the charging document contains an allegation of Retail Theft convictions, do not read that allegation, and do not send the charging document into the jury room. If the defendant is found guilty of Retail Theft, the historical fact of previous convictions must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt in a bifurcated proceeding. State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000). As of November 2024, it was undetermined whether a conviction requires an adjudication of guilt for purposes of the Retail Theft statute. 

Now that you have found the defendant guilty of Retail Theft, you must further determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was previously convicted two or more times of Retail Theft under either § 812.015(8), Florida Statutes, or § 812.015(9), Florida Statutes. 

Lesser Included Offenses

RETAIL THEFT —— 812.015(8)(c) 

Comments

*§ 812.015, Fla. Stat., contains multiple ways to commit Retail Theft. This instruction covers only § 812.015(8)(c), Fla. Stat. A special instruction will be necessary if other parts of § 812.015, Fla. Stat. are charged. 

Under the Retail Theft statute, the “value” of the property is the price stated on the price tag affixed to the item at the time it was stolen. F.T. v. State, 146 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). This determination of “value” may be different than “value” as defined in the theft statute.

The 120-day period in which the crime of Retail Theft can be committed became effective on October 1, 2024. Prior to October 1st, the statute contained a 30-day period.

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2017 [231 So. 3d 384], on May 22, 2020, on April 25, 2023, and on February 21, 2025.

14.5 THEFT OF COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

§ 812.15(2)(a), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Theft of Communications Services, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Give 1a or 1b as applicable.

1. (Defendant) knowingly and willfully

a. intercepted, received, decrypted, disrupted, transmitted, retransmitted or acquired access to any communication service.

b. assisted [others] [another] in intercepting, receiving, decrypting, disrupting, transmitting, retransmitting or acquiring access to any communication service.

2. (Defendant) did not have the express authorization of the cable operator or other communications service provider to do so.

3. (Defendant) did so with the intent to defraud the cable operator or communications service provider.

§ 812.15(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable. 

If you find the defendant guilty of Theft of Communications Services, you must further determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether the defendant acted for the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.

No Defense. § 812.15(9), Fla. Stat. Give only if applicable.

This offense may be deemed to have been committed at any place where the defendant manufactured, developed or assembled any communications devices involved in the violation, or assists others in these acts, or any place where the communications device is sold or delivered to a purchaser or recipient.

It is not a defense that some of the acts constituting the offense occurred outside the state.

Definitions. 

“Willfully” means intentionally and purposely. 

“Cable Operator” means a communications service provider who provides some or all of its communications services pursuant to a “cable television franchise” issued by a “franchising authority.” See 47 U.S.C. s. 522(9-10) (1992) for definitions of “cable television franchise” and “franchising authority.”

“Cable System” means any communications service network, system or facility owned or operated by a cable operator.

“Communications Device” means any type of electronic mechanism, transmission line or connections and appurtenances thereto, instrument, device, machine, equipment, or software that is capable of intercepting, transmitting, acquiring, decrypting, or receiving any communications service, or any part, accessory, or component thereof, including any computer circuit, splitter, connector, switches, transmission hardware, security module, smart card, software, computer chip, electronic mechanism, or other component, accessory, or part of any communication device which is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, decryption, or reception of any communications service.

“Communications service” means any service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation by any cable system or by any radio, fiber optic, photo-optical, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, satellite, microwave, data transmission, internet-based, or wireless distribution network, system, or facility, including but not limited to, any electronic, data, video, audio, internet access, microwave, and radio communications, transmissions, signals, and service, and any such communications, transmissions, signals, and services lawfully provided for a charge or compensation, directly or indirectly by or through any of those networks, systems, or facilities.

“Communications service provider” means:

1. Any person or entity owning or operating any cable system or any fiber optic, photo-optical, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, satellite, wireless, microwave, radio, data transmission, or internet-based distribution network, system, or facility.

2. Any person or entity providing any lawful communications service, whether directly or indirectly, as a reseller or licensee, by or through any such distribution network, system or facility.

Give 1 or 2 as applicable, only if element 1b is charged.

The term “assisted others” includes:

1. The sale, transfer, license, distribution, deployment, lease, manufacture, development, or assembly of a communication device for the purpose of facilitating the unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, or access to any communications service offered by a cable operator or any other communications service provider.

2. The sale, transfer, license, distribution, deployment, lease, manufacture, development, or assembly of a communication device for the purpose of defeating or circumventing any effective technology, device, or software, or any component thereof, used by cable operator or other communications service provider to protect any communications service from unauthorized receipt, acquisition interception, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comments

A first violation of this statute is a first-degree misdemeanor. A subsequent conviction becomes a third-degree felony. As of September 2020, it is unclear whether the fact of a prior conviction will be viewed as an element of the felony or as a recidivist factor for the judge to determine at sentencing. 

If treated as an element, it is error to inform the jury of a prior conviction. Therefore, if the information or indictment contains an allegation of one or more prior Theft of Communications Services convictions, do not read that allegation and do not send the information or indictment into the jury room. Instead, a modified version of the information or indictment alleging a misdemeanor violation may be read and/or sent into the jury room. If the defendant is found guilty, the historical fact of a prior conviction shall be determined beyond a reasonable doubt in a bifurcated proceeding before a jury. See State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000). 

This instruction was adopted in 2007 [965 So. 2d 811] and amended on October 2, 2020.

14.6 UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION OF A COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE

§ 812.15(4)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Unauthorized Possession of a Communications Device, the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) intentionally possessed a communications device.

2. (Defendant) did not have the express authorization of the cable operator or other communications service provider to possess such a device.

3. (Defendant) knew or had reason to know that the design of such device rendered it primarily useful [for assisting others] to willfully intercept, receive, decrypt, disrupt, transmit, retransmit, or acquire access to any communications service.

4. (Defendant) intentionally possessed the communications device with the intent to defraud the cable operator or communications service provider.

If you find the defendant guilty of Unauthorized Possession of a Communications Device, you must determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether the defendant possessed:

Give a, b, or c as applicable.

a. Less than five communications devices.

b. Five or more communications devices, but less than fifty.

c. Fifty or more communications devices.

Possession.

To prove that a person “possessed” a communications device, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] [she] a) knew of the existence of the communications device; and b) intentionally exercised control over it. 

Give if applicable. 

Control can be exercised over a communications device whether it is carried on a person, near a person, or in a completely separate location. Mere proximity to a communication device does not establish that the person intentionally exercised control over it in the absence of additional evidence. Control can be established by proof that the person had direct personal power to control the communications device or the present ability to direct its control by another. 

Joint possession. 

Possession of a communications device card may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess it. 

“Willfully” means knowingly, intentionally, and purposely.

“Cable Operator” means a communications service provider who provides some or all of its communications services pursuant to a “cable television franchise” issued by a “franchising authority.” See 47 U.S.C. s. 522(9-10) (1992) for definitions of “cable television franchise” and “franchising authority.”

“Cable System” means any communications service network, system or facility owned or operated by a cable operator.

“Communications Device” means any type of electronic mechanism, transmission line or connections and appurtenances thereto, instrument, device, machine, equipment, or software that is capable of intercepting, transmitting, acquiring, decrypting, or receiving any communications service, or any part, accessory, or component thereof, including any computer circuit, splitter, connector, switches, transmission hardware, security module, smart card, software, computer chip, electronic mechanism, or other component, accessory, or part of any communication device which is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, decryption, or reception of any communications service.

“Communications service” means any service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation by any cable system or by any radio, fiber optic, photo-optical, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, satellite, microwave, data transmission, internet-based, or wireless distribution network, system, or facility, including but not limited to, any electronic, data, video, audio, internet access, microwave, and radio communications, transmissions, signals, and service, and any such communications, transmissions, signals, and services lawfully provided for a charge or compensation, directly or indirectly by or through any of those networks, systems, or facilities.

“Communications service provider” means

1. Any person or entity owning or operating any cable system or any fiber optic, photo-optical, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, satellite, wireless, microwave, radio, data transmission, or internet-based distribution network, system, or facility.

2. Any person or entity providing any lawful communications service, whether directly or indirectly, as a reseller or licensee, by or through any such distribution network, system or facility.

Give only if the bracketed portion in element #3 is read.

The term “assisting others” includes:

1. The sale, transfer, license, distribution, deployment, lease, manufacture, development, or assembly of a communication device for the purpose of facilitating the unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, or access to any communications service offered by a cable operator or any other communications service provider.

2. The sale, transfer, license, distribution, deployment, lease, manufacture, development, or assembly of a communication device for the purpose of defeating or circumventing any effective technology, device, or software, or any component thereof, used by cable operator or other communications service provider to protect any communications service from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2007 [965 So. 2d 811] and was amended on October 2, 2020.

14.7 FALSE VERIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP OR FALSE IDENTIFICATION TO A PAWNBROKER

§ 539.001(8)(b)8, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of False Verification of Ownership or False Identification to a Pawnbroker, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) sold or pledged [goods] [(property alleged)] to a pawnbroker.

2. At the time, (defendant) knowingly gave [false verification of ownership of the [goods] [(property alleged)]] [false or altered identification] to the pawnbroker.

3. (Defendant) received money from the pawnbroker for the [goods] [(property alleged)] sold or pledged.

Enhanced penalty. Give if applicable.

If you find (defendant) guilty of false verification of ownership or false identification to a pawnbroker, you must then determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the money received was $300 or more.

Definition.

§ 539.001(2)(i), Fla. Stat.

“Pawnbroker” means any person who is engaged in the business of making pawns; who makes a public display containing the term “pawn,” “pawnbroker,” or “pawnshop” or any derivative thereof; or who publicly displays a sign or symbol historically identified with pawns. A pawnbroker may also engage in the business of purchasing goods which includes consignment and trade.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 2008.

14.8 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A STOLEN [CREDIT] [DEBIT] CARD

§ 817.60(8), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Unlawful Possession of a Stolen [Credit] [Debit] Card, the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) knowingly [possessed] [received] [retained custody of] a [credit] [debit] card.

2. The [credit] [debit] card had been taken from the [possession] [custody] [control] of another without the cardholder’s consent.

3. The (defendant) knew the [credit] [debit] card had been taken from the [possession] [custody] [control] of another without the cardholder’s consent.

4. At the time (defendant) [possessed] [received] [retained] the [credit] [debit] card, [he] [she] had the intent to impede the recovery of the [credit] [debit] card by the cardholder.

Definitions.

§ 817.58(4), Fla. Stat.

“Credit card” means any instrument or device, whether known as a credit card, credit plate, bank service card, banking card, check guarantee card, electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card, or debit card or by any other name, issued with or without fee by an issuer for the use of the cardholder in obtaining money, goods, services, or anything else of value on credit or for use in an automated banking device to obtain any of the services offered through the device.

Possession.

To prove that a person “possessed” a [credit] [debit] card, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] [she] a) knew of the existence of the [credit] [debit] card; and b) intentionally exercised control over it. 

Give if applicable. 

Control can be exercised over a [credit] [debit] card whether it is carried on a person, near a person, or in a completely separate location. Mere proximity to a [credit] [debit] card does not establish that the person intentionally exercised control over it in the absence of additional evidence. Control can be established by proof that the person had direct personal power to control the [credit] [debit] card or the present ability to direct its control by another. 

Joint possession.

Possession of [credit] [debit] card may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess it.

Lesser Included Offenses

UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A STOLEN [CREDIT] [DEBIT] CARD—817.60(8)

Comments

Pursuant to § 817.60(8), Fla. Stat., it is not a crime for a retailer or retail employee, in the ordinary course of business, to possess, receive, or return a credit card or debit card that the retailer or retail employee does not know was stolen or to possess, receive, or retain a credit card or debit card that the retailer or retail employee knows is stolen for the purpose of an investigation into the circumstances regarding the theft of the card or its possible unlawful use. 

This instruction was adopted in 2013 [131 So. 3d 720] and amended in 2018.

14.9 VENDING MACHINE THEFT

§ 877.08(3), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Vending Machine Theft, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) [molested] [opened] [broke] [injured] [damaged] [inserted any part of [his] [her] body] [any instrument] into a [coin-operated vending machine] [parking meter].

2. [He] [She] intended to commit theft.

3. The coin-operated vending machine or parking meter was the property of (name of owner).

A “coin-operated vending machine” or “parking meter” is any machine, contrivance, or device that is adapted for use in such a way that, as a result of the insertion of any money, coin or other object, the machine, contrivance, parking meter, or device operates or may be operated and the user becomes entitled to receive any food, drink, telephone or telegraph service, insurance protection, parking privilege or any other personal property, service, protection, right, or privilege of any kind or nature whatsoever.

A theft is defined as (insert relevant elements from instruction 14.1).

Lesser Included Offense

VENDING MACHINE THEFT — 877.08(3)

Comments

Prior to April 2026, this instruction was numbered as 29.11.

This instruction was adopted in 1981.

14.10 FAILURE TO RETURN [HIRED] [LEASED] PROPERTY

§ 812.155(3), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Failure to Return [Hired] [Leased] Property, the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 

1. (Defendant) [hired] [leased] personal property [or equipment] from (victim) [or (victim’s agent)]. 

2. As part of the [hiring] [leasing], (defendant) agreed to return the property [or equipment] to (victim) [or (victim’s agent)] at the end of the period for which the property [or equipment] was [hired] [leased]. 

3. (Defendant) knowingly [abandoned] [refused to return] the property [or equipment] as agreed.

4. (Defendant) did so without the consent of (victim) [or (victim’s agent)]. 

Enhancement. Give if applicable. 

If you find the defendant guilty of Failure to Return Hired or Leased Property, you must also determine whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the property [or equipment] was $300 or more.

Give if applicable. § 812.012(10), Fla. Stat.

“Value” means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense, or if that value cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the offense. If the exact value of the property cannot be ascertained, you should attempt to determine a minimum value. If you cannot determine the minimum value, you must find the value was less than $300.

Lesser Included Offenses

FAILURE TO RETURN HIRED OR LEASED PROPERTY — 812.155(3) 

Comment

See § 812.155(6), Fla. Stat. for the notice that is required in the leasing agreement which is a prerequisite to prosecution. 

This instruction was adopted in 2014.

14.11 [POSSESSION OF] [USE OF] [OR] [ATTEMPT TO USE] AN ANTISHOPLIFTING OR INVENTORY CONTROL DEVICE COUNTERMEASURE

§ 812.015(7), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of [Possession of] [Use of] [or] [Attempt to Use an] an Antishoplifting or Inventory Control Device Countermeasure, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) [possessed] [used] [or] [attempted to use] an antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure.

2. At the time, [he] [she] was within any premises used for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise.

Definitions. 

§ 812.015(1)(i), Fla. Stat.

“Antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure” means any item or device which is designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat any antishoplifting or inventory control device. 

§ 812.015(1)(h), Fla. Stat.

“Antishoplifting or inventory control device” means a mechanism or other device designed and operated for the purpose of detecting the removal from a mercantile establishment or similar enclosure, or from a protected area within such an enclosure, of specially marked or tagged, merchandise. The term includes any electronic or digital imaging or any video recording or other film used for security purposes and the cash register tape or other record made of the register receipt.

§ 812.015(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

“Merchandise” means any personal property, capable of manual delivery, displayed, held, or offered for retail sale by a merchant.

§ 812.015(1)(b), Fla. Stat.

“Merchant” means an owner or operator, or the agent, consignee, employee, lessee, or officer of an owner or operator, of any premises or apparatus used for retail purchase or sale of any merchandise. 

Possession. Give if applicable.

To prove (defendant) “possessed an antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure,” the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] [she] a) knew of the existence of the antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure and b) intentionally exercised control over that antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure. 

Control can be exercised over an antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure whether the antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure is carried on a person, near a person, or in a completely separate location, that is within any premises for the retail purchase or sale of any merchandise. Mere proximity to an antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure does not establish that the person intentionally exercised control over the antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure in the absence of additional evidence. Control can be established by proof that (defendant) had direct personal power to control the antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure or the present ability to direct its control by another. 

Joint possession. Give if applicable.

Possession of an antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess an antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure.

Lesser Included Offense

The Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases identified no lesser included offenses. 

Comment

This instruction was adopted on April 5, 2021.

14.12 MISAPPLICATION OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDS

§ 713.345(1), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Misapplication of Construction Funds, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) received a payment on account of improving real property.

2. (Defendant) knowingly and intentionally failed to apply such portion of any payment to the payment of all amounts then due and owing for [services and labor which were performed on] [materials which were furnished for] such improvement prior to receipt of the payment. 

3. At the time of element #2, (defendant) was a person, firm, or corporation, or an agent, officer, or employee of a firm or a corporation.

Give as applicable.

If you find the defendant guilty of Misapplication of Construction Funds, you must also determine if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a. the amount of payments misapplied had an aggregate value of $100,000 or more.

b. the amount of payments misapplied had an aggregate value of $1,000 or more but less than $100,000.

c. the amount of payments misapplied had an aggregate value of less than $1,000.

§ 192.001(12), Fla. Stat.

“Real property” means land, buildings, fixtures, and all other improvements to land. The terms “land,” “real estate,” “realty,” and “real property” may be used interchangeably.

“Knowingly” means that the defendant is aware of the act and is not acting through ignorance, mistake or accident.

The intent with which an act is done is an operation of the mind and, therefore, is not always capable of direct and positive proof. It may be established by circumstantial evidence like any other fact in a case.

§ 713.345(1), Fla. Stat.

You may infer that the defendant knowingly and intentionally misapplied construction funds if a valid lien had been recorded against the property of an owner for labor, services, or materials; or if the person who ordered the labor, services, or materials had received sufficient funds to pay for such labor, services, or materials; and the person failed, for a period of at least 45 days from receipt of the funds, to remit sufficient funds to pay for such labor, services, or materials. 

This inference does not apply if the defendant withheld any payment, or any part of any payment, in accordance with the terms of a contract for services, labor or materials or pursuant to a genuine dispute regarding the amount due, if any, for such services labor, or materials. 

Lesser Included Offense

14.12 MISAPPLICATION OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDS – 713.345(1)

Comments

The crime in § 713.345(1), Fla. Stat. does not prevent any person from withholding any payment, or any part of a payment, in accordance with the terms of a contract for services, labor, or materials, or pursuant to a bona fide dispute regarding the amount due, if any, for such services, labor, or materials. As of February 2026, it was unclear whether this provision will be treated as an affirmative defense, and if so, which party has the burden of persuasion and by what standard of proof. A special instruction will be necessary if there is evidence of one of these circumstances. 

§ 713.345(2), Fla. Stat. states that the crime does not apply to mortgage bankers or their agents, servants, or employees for their acts in the usual course of the business of lending or disbursing mortgage funds. As of February 2026, it was unclear whether this provision will be treated as an affirmative defense, and if so, which party has the burden of persuasion and by what standard of proof. A special instruction will be necessary if there is evidence of this circumstance.

This instruction was adopted on March 20, 2026.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1366_5f72abfc8fcf8a7e8091ba4254c1c091c33c4705

1367_23ea40e725dcf1335619804e1c1ed6853cb79cbb

1368_d2c74d1681ed621da1e991c805ec32f2a0a56f97

1369_56a316d626efb8c63cfafc6694699b112fa1e15f

1370_306fd69d3d7f79be3dcb44776fa49254adc87fd0

1371_8af7fc1410cda72d1fba0593863fd8e490d330b7

1372_b2356bba47e02574c895c10dc737115f62a4e26e

1373_27bb7815b89f26cadd1e7b320070c069560ae6c3

1374_76d8c87e45acece06029607cf073c623196569ac

1375_ed8d85f0d873f6db4d87e7f51145faddafb9c363

1376_9629983e1eb50310f2d9e9619bfd4269c30e49bf

1377_a2cfab50e7baca91121ccf11d9becf39b9f4dede