WILLIAM LEE BROWN, 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.
William Lee Brown was convicted of manslaughter and appealed on two grounds: that he was improperly absent during a jury inquiry discussion and that admission of a police interrogation tape containing references to his codefendant's statements violated his Confrontation Clause rights. The court affirmed, finding no reversible error on either claim.
The court held that no reversible error occurred because: (1) the defendant was present when the court actually responded to the jury requests and his counsel participated without objection, so the issue was not preserved for appeal; and (2) the Bruton Confrontation Clause violation was inapplicable because only the defendant was tried, not a joint trial with a nontestifying codefendant, and any hearsay error was harmless in light of the defendant's own confessional statements.
[1] A defendant's argument regarding their absence from a discussion between the court and counsel about jury instructions is not preserved for appeal if not objected to at t…
[2] A defendant's absence from a discussion between the court and counsel regarding jury requests is not reversible error when the defendant was present when the court respon…
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“defendant in the case before us was present when the trial court responded to the jury requests, and defendant's counsel participated in the discussion as to how to respond. Additionally, during the discussion defendant's counsel made no objection to defendant's absence.”
Explains why no reversible error occurred despite defendant's absence during initial jury inquiry discussion because he was present at the actual response and his counsel did not object.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring jury deliberations, the jury requested a copy of the indictment and a replay of previously heard taped statements. The trial court provided the…
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 Present At Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals from his conviction of manslaughter. We affirm.
Defendant argues that error occurred because he was not present when the trial court discussed with counsel for the defendant and counsel for the state the nature of the response to be made by the court to certain requests by the jury during its deliberations. The jury requested a copy of the indictment and the playing of certain taped statements which had already been played to the jury. The court provided the copy of the indictment, with allegations of premeditation deleted because a' verdict for defendant on premeditated murder had already been directed. The court also provided the jury with a playing of the taped statements.
Under certain language of Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1977), defendant’s absence during the discussion would appear to be prejudicial error.
However, in contrast to the facts of Ivory, defendant in the case before us was present when the trial court responded to the jury requests, and defendant’s counsel participated in the discussion as to how to respond.
Additionally, during the discussion defendant’s counsel made no objection to defendant’s absence. The issue is raised for the first time on appeal. In Ivory it was stated that defendant's absence was prejudicial error, but Ivory did not state that defendant’s absence would be reversible error in all eases. In Ivory the defense counsel made a motion for mistrial, and the Ivory opinion does not discuss the matter of a waiver of an objection to defendant’s absence. We do not believe that Ivory requires a finding of reversible error under the facts of this case.
We find that defendant did not preserve this argument for appeal. See Johnson v. United States, 318 U.S. 189, 63 S.Ct. 549, 87 L.Ed. 704 (1943). See also People v. Wright, 124 Ill.App.2d 223, 260 N.E. 2d 265 (1970); Daugherty v. State, 225 Ga. 274, 168 S.E. 2d 155 (1969); People v. Baker, 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 330 P. 2d 240 (3d Dist.1958).
Defendant also argues that allowing the jury to hear a tape recording of his questioning by a police officer, during which the police officer referred to several statements by defendant’s co-perpetrator, violated defendant’s constitutional right to confront and cross-examine his accusers, citing Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).
However, only defendant was on trial in the proceeding below. The statements were not by a nontestifying codefendant in a joint trial. No violation of the Bruton rule has been shown. The officer’s references to the co-perpetrator’s statements were inadmissible hearsay, however, which raises the question of whether the admission of the testimony was harmful error.
We find that the error was harmless in light of defendant’s admissions in his own confession.
AFFIRMED.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 488 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1986)…Rose and recede from Ivory. Accord Meek v. State, 474 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Morgan v. State, 471 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), review denied, 462 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1985); Brown v. State, 449 So. 2d 1293 (Fla.2d DCA), review denied, 459 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1984); and Villavicencio v. State, 449 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 456 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1984). Turning to the case at hand and applying harmless error principles, I am persuaded that t…
-
Meek v. State, 487 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1986)…QUESTION IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE PROSECUTOR, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DEFENDANT? Meek, 474 So. 2d at 343. . Villavicencio v. State, 449 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 456 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1984); Brown v. State, 449 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 459 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1984); Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), review denied, 462 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1985).…
-
Meek v. State, 474 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…cencio v. State, 449 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), pet. for rev. denied, 456 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1984) (a communication with the jury as to a particular exhibit without the defendant or his counsel present constituted harmless error); Brown v. State, 449 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 2d DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 459 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1984); and in Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), pet. for rev. denied, 462 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1985), (if error occurred when the trial court, in the absence of the defendant, c…
Authorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Johnson v. United States, 318 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1943)
- Donnie Lee Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1977)