RICHARD G. WOODRING, 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.
Richard Woodring was convicted by jury of cocaine trafficking. The appellate court reversed because the trial judge improperly directed the jury to review tape-recorded jury instructions to answer a substantive question about the elements of the charge, rather than providing new oral instructions as required by procedural rules.
The judgment and sentence are reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. When a court determines that additional jury instructions are required, the judge must provide those instructions orally and cannot simply direct the jury to listen to previously recorded instructions.
[1] A trial court's submission of tape-recorded jury instructions to the jury room, even if not prohibited by rule, is a practice that should be discouraged.
[2] When a jury requests additional instructions, the court must reinstruct on all matters about which the jury inquired.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“once the court determines the jury should be reinstructed, the judge must reinstruct on all matters about which the jury inquired”
Establishes the mandatory duty to provide complete oral reinstructions when jury asks substantive questions about elements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoodring was found guilty by jury of trafficking in cocaine. During deliberations, after four hours, the jury submitted a written question asking whet…
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 Notice To Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
WATSON, R.O., Associate Judge.
Defendant, Richard Garrett Woodring, was found guilty by a jury of trafficking in cocaine.
The jury instructions were recorded by the trial judge and over objection of the defendant, a tape player and the tape recorded jury instructions were sent to the jury room for use during deliberations.
After four hours of deliberation, the jury sent a note to the judge:
Is the only difference between trafficking in cocaine and possession with intent to sell, manufacture or deliver, the amount of cocaine involved (28 grams)?
The trial judge responded in writing:
[Pjlease listen to the tape to determine the elements of the charges.
The record is silent as to whether the attorneys were notified of the jury’s question and of the judge’s note to the jury. There is no record of a motion for new trial alleging lack of notice nor did defense counsel file any affidavits.
The submission to the jury of tape recorded jury instructions was approved in United States v. Watson, 669 F. 2d 1374 (11th Cir.1982). In Dewitt v. State, 442 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), this court affirmed a conviction because no prejudice had been shown in permitting a tape recording of the jury instructions and a tape player to go to the jury room. However, we indicated that such a “practice” should be discouraged.
This case is a good example of why we discourage tape recorded jury instructions. Although the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure do not prohibit the submission of tape recorded jury instructions to the jury, rule 3.410 provides:
[A]nd the court may give them such additional instructions.... (emphasis added)
A number of cases hold that the giving of additional instructions is optional, but once the court determines the jury should be reinstructed, the judge must reinstruct on all matters about which the jury inquired. Chappell v. State, 423 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) and cases cited in Chappell.
The court determined additional instructions were required because the judge referred the jury to the recorded instructions and asked them to listen to the elements of the charges. The court did not give them additional instructions as required by rule 3.410, but left the jury to decide which instructions should be repeated. No one knows whether the jury heard the appropriate instructions or whether they heard any instructions. Such a procedure was prejudicial to the defendant.
Because of the disposition of this case, it is not necessary to consider the other matters raised by defendant.
The judgment and sentence are reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCARTHY v. State, 446 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…where no prejudice has been shown to result. Powell v. State, 443 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Fayson v. State, 442 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); DeWitt v. State, 442 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). In a more recent case, Woodring v. State, 448 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), we reversed when the trial judge, upon the jury’s request for reinstruction, declined to verbally reinstruct and, instead, attempted to rely upon the jury’s ability to find the relevant instructions on the tape. We determined th…
-
Crawley v. State, 455 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…irmed. See McCarthy v. State, 446 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Powell v. State, 443 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Fayson v. State, 442 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Dewitt v. State, 442 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Cf. Woodring v. State, 448 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH and CO-WART, JJ., concur.…
-
Johnson v. State, 573 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…raised on appeal. We write briefly on appellant’s second point regarding the submission of taped jury instructions to the jury. The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure do not prohibit this practice and appellant’s reliance upon Woodring v. State, 448 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 456 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1984), is misplaced. In Woodring, the Fifth District reversed in a case involving this same practice where the trial court, in response to a question from the deliberating jury, simply told the jury…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Watson, 669 F.2d 1374 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Jones v. State, 423 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Wallace v. Sears, 442 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Dewitt v. State, 442 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)