ROBERT E. DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Robert Davis appeals his convictions for attempted first degree murder, challenging the lower court's denial of a new trial motion based on a jury request for reinstruction during deliberations that was not communicated to the defense. The appellate court reversed, holding that failure to notify counsel of jury requests and allow counsel to participate constitutes reversible error.
The court held that it is reversible error for a trial judge to deny or respond to a jury request made during deliberations without first advising trial counsel and giving them the opportunity to participate in the discussion. The failure to permit counsel to be heard in response to the jury request was reversible error.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by denying or responding to a jury's request for reinstruction during deliberations without first notifying and affording trial cou…
[2] A jury's request for reinstruction during deliberations, if established by uncontradicted testimony, necessitates a new trial if counsel was not informed and given an opp…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is reversible error for the trial judge to deny or give a response to a jury request made during deliberations until trial counsel have been advised and given the opportunity to participate in discussion.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for jury requests during deliberations and the mandatory requirement for counsel notification.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring jury deliberations in Davis's trial for attempted first degree murder, five of six jurors recalled requesting reinstruction from the judge thro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Robert E. Davis appeals from two convictions for attempted first degree murder. We hold that the lower court erred in not granting a new trial after appellant showed that the jury’s request for reinstruction was not communicated to appellant or appellant’s counsel, and we reverse.
After the notice of appeal was filed below, we relinquished jurisdiction for a hearing on motion for new trial to determine whether there was communication with the jury during its deliberation without notice to the prosecutor or defense. Following a hearing, the trial judge denied the motion.
During the hearing below, five of the six jurors recalled speaking to the bailiff in charge of the jury. Of the five jurors that recalled contact with the bailiff, three specifically recalled that they requested rein-struetion by the judge. The other two jurors testified the request for reinstruction specifically related to the different verdicts which could be returned.
One juror testified that the bailiff, upon his return to the jury, informed the jury that the trial judge would not give an answer to their request. The recollection of that event by three other jurors varied as their testimony reveals they recalled that the bailiff reported back either that he could not locate the judge at that moment, or that the judge had agreed to their request for further definition, or that the bailiff informed the jurors that further clarification was not possible.
The bailiff testified that he recalled no contact with the jury, and the trial judge had no independent recollection of the case. Neither counsel recalled notice of a request for information from the jury, and the court reporter had no notes of being called back during jury deliberations.
It is reversible error for the trial judge to deny or give a response to a jury request made during deliberations until trial counsel have been advised and given the opportunity to participate in discussion. Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1977); Caldwell v. State, 340 So. 2d 490 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied, 346 So. 2d 1247 (Fla.1977). The testimony below,' uncontradict-ed as to the jurors’ posing the question, will only support a finding that such a request was made. The testimony of counsel and the court reporter that they did not recall or make notes of any conference during jury deliberations will likewise only support a finding that no such conference took place.
We hold that failure of the lower court to permit counsel to be heard in response to the jury request was reversible error. The judgment is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for a new trial.
CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crews v. State, 442 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…al instructions or may order such testimony read to them. Such instructions shall be given and such testimony read only after notice to the prosecuting attorney and to counsel for the defendant. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.410. . See generally Davis v. State, 408 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Flowers v. State, 348 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Randolph v. State, 336 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Slinsky v. State, 232 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). . Walt Disney World Co. v. Althouse, 427 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA…
Authorities Cited
- Donnie Lee Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1977)
- Caldwell v. State, 340 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)