instructing the jury, the judicial obligation is to ensure “impartial deliberations upon the guilt of a criminal defendant based solely upon the evidence in accordance with proper and adequate instructions.” The core of the jury’s duty is to determine criminal culpability, not punishment. Except in capital eases, we do not allow trial courts to inform jurors of the availability or severity of the punishments consequent to the various offenses before them. [Id. at 61, 618 A.2d 316 (cit L.Ed.2d 226 (1991); United States v. McDonald, 935 F.2d 1212, 1222 (11th Cir.1991) (noting that it is part of Eleventh Circuit’s pattern jury instruction to advise that question of punishment should not be considered by jury in deciding case); United States v. Patrick, 494 F.2d 1150, 1153 (D.C.Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Davidson, 367 F.2d 60, 63
recognizing in a dictum judicial function exception but holding that receiving from defendant false name and consent form to proceed thereunder is within courts administrative function recognizing that competing inferences are not enough to disturb the jurys verdict even in a case where the evidence of the defendants guilt was entirely circumstantial holding that ccmcs activities did not amount to a traditional exclusive public function holding that jurys sole function is to assess guilt or innocence whereas sentencing decisions are within exclusive province of court holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions