JULIO M. PINEIRO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
We affirm on the authority of the en banc opinion of this court in Farrow v. State, 573 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. GARRETT, J., specially concurs with opinion.
GARRETT, Judge,
concurring specially.
I am bound to follow the en banc opinion of this court. However, I write to note my dissent in Farrow.
Further, Diaz v. State, 567 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) is apparently contrary to my dissent. I completely disagree with that decision. Whether a trial takes one day or one month, a defendant is entitled to a proper trial. I repeat, one should not underestimate the power of a jury to resolve factual issues. What escapes the legally trained minds of a judge and counsel may be captured by conscientious jurors. A judge by instruction or otherwise should not interfere with the jury deliberation process. If the importance of a jury asking to have testimony reread to them is missed by defense counsel, the appellate courts of this state should not compound such fundamental error.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Gonzalez v. State, 136 So. 3d 1125 (Fla. 2014)…ge stated, outside the presence of the jury, “I think the answer is no, rely on your memory.” Id. After no response from the attorneys regarding this statement, the judge instructed the jury accordingly. Id. The district court cited Farrow v. State, 573 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), for the principle that finding fundamental error under similar circumstances would encourage gamesmanship, as defense counsel may strategically choose not to object, await the outcome of the trial, and if unfavorable, secure a c…
-
Hendricks v. State, 34 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…) (noting defense counsel’s objection to the court’s response to the jury’s request to “see” testimony). Because the issue was preserved, the courts in those cases were not called upon to consider fundamental error. In contrast, in Farrow v. State, 573 So. 2d 161, 162-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), the Fourth District considered whether it was fundamental error for the trial court to announce to the jury during voir dire, “[Y]ou’re going to have to listen very carefully to the testimony of the witnesses [*831] beca…
-
Barr v. State, 572 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Farrow v. State, 573 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). WALDEN, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Farrow v. State, 573 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Diaz v. State, 567 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)