the construction of the sentences or the words used are amenable to some criticism, so long as the meaning the court intended to convey is reasonably clear.” Kline v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 178 So.2d 739, 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Typically, reversals based on deficient jury instructions involve incorrect statements of the law. For example, in Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co. v. Farish, 464 So.2d 530, 533 (Fla.1985), the trial court gave an instruction that “the greater a defendant’s wealth, the greater must be punitive damages.” The supreme court reversed for a new trial on punitive damages, since the instruction was “not an accurate rule of law” that had been “specifically repudiated” in an earlier case. Id.; see also Coble v. Am. Parks, 576 So.2d 422, 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (<HOLDING>); Poole v. Lowell Dunn Co., 573 So.2d 51, 53-54
holding that it was not error for the court to give a substantive new instruction to the jury after deliberations began where the instruction was given in court with the defendant and his counsel present holding that reversal for a new trial was required where jury instruction relating to fraud was incorrect holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given holding omission in the jury instruction of element of offense requires a new trial holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction