WILLIE HARMON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudicial Error cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Harmon appeals from a final judgment adjudicating him guilty of attempted robbery.1 The only issue of substance is whether the trial judge erred in sending to the jury room, in response to the jury’s request for further instructions, a set of standard jury instructions, which the judge had apparently read to them in court. The inapplicable parts of the instructions were blackened-out and the judge sent along a note which said: “Hopefully, the attached instructions will be of assistance. Ignore the blackened portions completely!” Defense counsel objected to this procedure because the print of the inapplicable part of the instructions could be read through the black marks.
This procedure is risky at best, because prejudicial matter might conceivably be sent to the jury. However, appellant has failed to point out any damaging or prejudicial material legible beneath the blackened-out portions of these instructions.2 Therefore, we
AFFIRM.
COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . §§ 777.04, 812.13(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1981).
. Cf. McCarthy v. State, 446 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Dewitt v. State, 442 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…(Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Rivera v. Rivera, 562 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Bennett v. Cont’l Chems., Inc., 492 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Weissing, 448 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Foremost Ins. Co. v. Barkett, 441 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Indeed, a trial court’s obligation to hew strictly to the rule’s terms is so well established that it may be enforced by a writ of mandamus compelling the court…
-
Genuine Parts Co. v. Parsons, 917 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…, Inc. v. Hotz Mgmt. Co., Inc., 483 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). A writ of mandamus, however, may be issued to enforce compliance with a mandatory rule. See S.W.T. v. C.A.P., 595 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Weissing, 448 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(a) provides that “[a]n action is at issue after any motions directed to the last pleading served have been disposed of or, if no such motions are served, 20 days after service of the last p…
-
Asuncion Santana v. State, 548 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…uction, was given the whole book of jury instructions. While the trial court cautioned the jury not to read anything but the marked passages, the court felt this was insufficient considering the potential for prejudice. Likewise, in Harmon v. State, 448 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), the jury was sent a set of standard instructions which contained blackened out sections. Although this was not considered reversible error in that case, [*295] the Fifth District commented that the practice of sending in written…
Authorities Cited
- Wallace v. Sears, 442 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Dewitt v. State, 442 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- McCARTHY v. State, 446 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)