Notice: Proposed criminal procedure rule

first_imgThe Florida Bar Criminal Procedure Rules Committee has filed with the Florida Supreme Court an emergency petition proposing new Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203 (Defendant’s Mental Retardation as a Bar to the Imposition of Death Sentence) and proposing amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.704 (The Criminal Punishment Code). Rule 3.203 is necessary due to 2001 legislation that created section 921.137, Florida Statutes (2001), which provides a new defense and prohibits the imposition of the death penalty on a mentally retarded defendant. See ch. 2001-202, Laws of Fla. The new rule would provide procedures and guidance for defendants, the State of Florida, and the trial courts. The proposed amendments to rule 3.704 are to make the rule consistent with the legislative amendments to section 921.0021, Florida Statutes (2001), made in ch. 2001-210, Laws of Fla. The amendments to rule 3.704 would expand the consideration of a juvenile offender’s prior offenses to include five years of prior offenses, rather than the current three-year period.The court invites all interested persons to comment on the committee’s proposed amendments, which are reproduced in full below, as well as online at An original and seven copies of all comments must be filed with the court on or before August 1, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the committee chair, Raymond J. Rafool, II, P.O. Box 7286, Winter Haven 33883-7286, 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. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CASE NO. SC02-1230 RULE 3.203. DEFENDANT’S MENTAL RETARDATION AS A BAR TO IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE (a) Notice of Intent to Raise Mental Retardation as Bar to Imposition of Death Sentence; Time for Filing; Contents. A defendant who intends to raise mental retardation as a bar to the imposition of a death sentence shall give written notice to the prosecutor not less than 20 days before trial or at such other time as ordered by the court. The notice shall contain the names and addresses of any experts whom the defendant may call to testify at a hearing to determine mental retardation. (b) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Recommendation of Death. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (a) of this rule may file a motion for determination of mental retardation within 10 days after an advisory jury has recommended a death sentence. (c) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Recommendation of Life. The prosecutor shall notify the defendant, within 10 days after an advisory jury has returned a recommended sentence of life, if the state intends to seek a sentence of death. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (a) of this rule may file a motion for determination of mental retardation within 10 days after receiving notice that the state intends to seek a death sentence. (d) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Waiver of Advisory Jury Recommendation. A defendant who waives the right to a penalty phase jury may file a motion for determination of mental retardation no later than 10 days after completion of the penalty phase hearing. (e) Appointment of Experts; Time of Examination. The court shall appoint 2 experts in the field of mental retardation upon the receipt of the motion for determination of mental retardation. The experts shall evaluate the defendant and provide to the court and the parties a written report of their findings. The reports shall be provided a reasonable time prior to the final sentencing hearing. Attorneys for the state and defendant may be present at the examinations. (f) Defendant’s Refusal to Cooperate. If the defendant refuses to be examined by or fully cooperate with the court-appointed experts, the court may, in its discretion: (1) order the defense to allow the court-appointed experts to review all mental health reports, tests, and evaluations by the defendant’s expert; or (2) prohibit defense experts from testifying concerning any tests, evaluations, or examinations of the defendant regarding the defendant’s mental retardation. (g) Hearing on Motion to Determine Mental Retardation. At the hearing on the motion, the court shall consider the findings of the court-appointed experts, the findings of any other expert offered by the state or the defense, and all other evidence on the issue of whether the defendant has mental retardation. If the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant has mental retardation as defined in section 921.137, Florida Statutes (2001), the court may not impose a sentence of death. The court shall enter a written order that sets forth with specificity the findings in support of the court’s determination. RULE 3.704. THE CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT CODE (a) – (c) (no change) (d) General Rules and Definitions. (1) – (13) (no change) (14) “Prior record” refers to any conviction for an offense committed by the offender prior to the commission of the primary offense. Prior record includes convictions for offenses committed by the offender as an adult or as a juvenile, convictions by federal, out of state, military, or foreign courts and convictions for violations of county or municipal ordinances that incorporate by reference a penalty under state law. Federal, out of state, military or foreign convictions are scored at the severity level at which the analogous or parallel Florida crime is located. (A) (no change) (B) Juvenile dispositions of offenses committed by the offender within 5 3 years prior to the date of the commission of the primary offense must be scored as prior record if the offense would have been a crime if committed by an adult. Juvenile dispositions of sexual offenses committed by the offender more than 5 3 years prior to the date of the primary offense must be scored as prior record if the offender has not maintained a conviction-free record, either as an adult or as a juvenile, for a period of 5 3 consecutive years from the most recent date of release from confinement, supervision, or sanction, whichever is later, to the date of commission of the primary offense. (C) – (E) (no change) (15) – (28) (no change) Committee Notes The terms must and shall, as used in this rule, are mandatory and not permissive. 2001 Amendment. 3.704(d)(14)(B). The definition of “prior record” was amended to include juvenile dispositions of offenses committed within 5 years prior to the date of the commission of the primary offense. “Prior record” was previously defined to include juvenile disposition of offenses committed within 3 years prior to the date of the commission of the primary offense. This amendment reflects the legislative change to section 921.0021, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2001. This new definition of prior record applies to primary offenses committed on or after July 1, 2001. Notice: Proposed criminal procedure rule Notice: Proposed criminal procedure rulecenter_img July 1, 2002 Noticeslast_img read more

Brexit threat to international accounting standards convergence

first_imgThree of the UK’s leading insurers have lobbied government to block the International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) new insurance standard, IFRS 17.According to documents released to IPE under the Freedom of Information Act, Aviva, Legal & General (L&G) and Prudential described the new IFRS as “the answer to the question nobody has asked”.In a letter dated 14 July and addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, the trio warned the standard would cost “billions” to implement and “add risk to the UK during Brexit”.The IASB hoped IFRS 17 would enhance financial stability by forcing insurers to apply a common global accounting model for their liabilities at a time when they face growing pressure from record-low interest rates. In the case of UK insurers such as Aviva, L&G and Prudential, their liabilities include those transferred from defined benefit schemes through buy-in or buyout transactions. IFRS currently lacks an insurance liability accounting model and effectively tells insurers to calculate their liabilities using local accounting rules. In their letter, the insurers called for local rules to be retained.News of the insurers’ lobbying comes as civil servants race to develop a new UK-only endorsement mechanism for the IASB’s standards after the UK quits the EU.Meanwhile, separate HM Treasury (HMT) minutes also showed that, in meetings with officials this summer, the insurers argued the new standard would cost as much as Solvency II to implement but for little tangible benefit. Legal & General’s team told Treasury officials IFRS 17 was likely to cost around £200m (€224m) to implement.Aviva said the “radical” proposal would need a “significant period of testing”. L&G said a year-long period of testing was likely required “to identify and iron out the problems”.The Treasury appeared to be taking the insurers’ concerns seriously. A record of a meeting on 15 August between HMT and Prudential noted that a Treasury official advised the Prudential that “the case against IFRS 17 would be strengthened if accompanied by a more detailed evidence base”.The comment is the strongest hint yet that Brexit could derail IFRS 17. The European Commission has yet to endorse the standard.In their 14 July letter to the Chancellor, the insurers wrote: “[T]he UK’s exit from the European Union has provided us with an opportunity to retain the existing rules which are appropriate for the UK insurance industry.”Another minute from HMT hinted that the IASB could fail in its decade-long effort to converge accounting for insurance liabilities, with none of the world’s major economies tipped to adopt IFRS 17.The minute said: “The US, China, Japan and many other countries were unlikely to adopt [it], therefore, UK companies, which would be saddled with the costs of implementation, would be at a competitive disadvantage.”The question mark over IFRS 17 parallels the concern among pensions experts over the impact of the IASB’s IFRIC 14 project.The IASB voted last month to pause the project, which could force defined benefit scheme sponsors to recognise massive additional balance-sheet liabilities.BEIS, the government department currently responsible for IFRS-related issues, has delayed the release of documents related to IFRIC 14, citing the public interest.Lane Clark & Peacock partner Tim Marklew told IPE that Brexit could mean regulators would step in and carve out the changes.He said: “I believe that were the IASB to get IFRIC 14 wrong and render it unworkable for UK companies.“I can see quite a bit of pressure on UK regulators after Brexit to sort the problem out and level what is starting to look like a very uneven playing field for UK companies.”last_img read more

Cowboys’ Jason Witten uses Coach K’s Kobe Bryant story as motivation

first_img Baker Mayfield slams Texas, QB Sam Ehlinger and fuels Red River Rivalry Gerald McCoy angry Bucs gave his No. 93 to Ndamukong Suh Jason Witten is entering his second stint in the NFL with a certain “mamba mentality.”The longtime Cowboys tight end shocked everyone when he stepped away from a cushy gig in the “Monday Night Football” booth to strap his helmet back on and rejoin Dallas. Now back at field level, Witten is finding new ways to motivate himself at age 37. He said a recent trip to Duke with a few teammates included a dinner with hall of fame basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski. During the meal, Krzyzewski told a story from his USA basketball days that resonated with Witten.“My favorite was that Kobe (Bryant) came up to him and said, ‘Whoever the best offensive player is, I want to guard him,’” Witten said (via USA Today). “He said he’s only had two people ever look at him that way: Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant. I think that says a lot. We think Olympic basketball scoring in this day and age, and he’s talking about I want to guard the best guy. Related News View this post on Instagramcenter_img NFL finalizes pass interference replay rule for 2019 “It says a lot about what makes those guys great.” Back in the Dirt. #KPGA post shared by Jason Witten (@realjasonwitten82) on May 3, 2019 at 1:06pm PDTWitten has said he’s come back “to win games,” and much like Bryant on that Olympic team, he’s willing to do the not-so-glamorous stuff necessary to accomplish that goal.Reports from the Cowboys practice facility in Frisco, Texas, indicate Witten is making his presence felt by not only catching the football but by coaching younger players, as well. He said he’s still knocking some rust off, but he’s clearly enjoying the process with training camp set to begin in late July.“I love all that it entails,” Witten said at the close of minicamp. “From the preparation individually, the grind of going through it, spending time with those guys, day and night — from meetings to the rookie jokes that happen. And then on the field, just seeing that product start to come together and see the team come together. There’s nothing like it, in my opinion.”last_img read more