BOBBY L. WALLACE, 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.
Wallace appeals his conviction for three counts of sexual battery. The court reverses and remands for a new trial because the trial judge was absent from the courtroom while testimony was being read back to the jury during deliberations, which constitutes per se reversible error.
Yes. It is per se reversible error for a trial judge to absent himself or herself from the courtroom when communications are being received by or made to the jury. This constitutes fundamental error that is not susceptible to harmless error analysis.
[1] A trial judge's absence from the courtroom during communications with the jury constitutes per se reversible error.
[2] A trial judge's absence from the courtroom when the jury receives or makes communications is a fundamental error not subject to harmless error analysis.
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“It appears to be a per se reversible error for a trial judge to absent him or herself from the courtroom when communications are being received by, or made to, the jury.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that triggers reversal in this case
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 asked about testimony of a state witness. The judge told them he could not answer questions about evidence and 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 Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Wallace appeals from his judgments and sentences for three counts of sexual battery.1 One issue raised on appeal is dispositive and requires us to reverse this cause for a new trial. It appears to be a per se reversible error for a trial judge to absent him or herself from the courtroom when communications are being received by, or made to, the jury.
In this case, during jury deliberations, the jury asked a specific question about the testimony of one of the state’s witnesses. The judge replied, following a discussion with counsel for both sides, that he could not answer any question relating to the evidence, and that the jury would have to rely on their own memories. He also said the court reporter could read back the testimony to the jury, if requested, but that the entire testimony of the witness would have to be read, not just a part. The court then adjourned for the evening.
The next morning the jurors sent the judge a note saying they wanted to hear the testimony read back. The court had the court reporter read the testimony back, in its entirety, but while this was transpiring, the trial judge conducted a hearing in another case, in an adjoining courtroom. It is not clear whether or not the state attorney and defense counsel were present, although presumably they were. It is clear that Wallace was not consulted about this procedure, and gave no express consent to it.
This case is not distinguishable from Maldonado v. State, 634 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). This court set out the facts in Maldonado:
During jury deliberations, the jury asked to hear the testimony of the three key state witnesses. The trial court then proposed to both parties’ counsel that the court reporter be sent into the jury room to read the transcript. Both the prosecutor and Maldonado’s attorney agreed, and both counsel agreed not to be present when the court reporter read the testimony to the jury. The trial court likewise was not present for the reading. Although Maldonado’s attorney and prosecutor agreed to this procedure, Maldonado did not because neither his attorney nor the trial court consulted him
634 So. 2d at 662.
We held that the absence of the trial judge during these communications to the jury con stituted fundamental error. Brown v. State, 538 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1989). We also agreed that this kind of error was not susceptible to the harmless error test. See Young v. State, 591 So. 2d 651 (Fla 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly we reverse this cause and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.
HARRIS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur. . § 794.011(2), Fla.Stat. (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferrer v. Manning, 682 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…nonexistence of a knowing and intelligent waiver of the judge’s presence by Ferrer himself. Such circumstances are considered fundamental error and are per se reversible. Bryant v. State, 656 So. 2d 426, 428-29 (Fla.1995); Wal [*660] lace v. State, 650 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Glee v. State, 639 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Maldonado v. State, 634 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The governing standard to be applied in evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is as follows:…1 / 2
-
Salgado-Mantilla v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…temporaneous objection). waiver of the judge's presence by [the defendant] himself . . . [s]uch circumstances are considered fundamental error and are per se reversible” (citing Bryant v. State, 656 So. 2d 426, 428–29 (Fla. 1995); Wallace v. State, 650 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Glee v. State, 639 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Maldonado v. State, 634 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994))). In Bryant, 656 So. 2d at 426, the Florida Supreme Court held that it was fundamental error for the judge to leave a c…
-
Salgado-Mantilla v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 538 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1989)
- Maldonado v. State, 634 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Young v. State, 591 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)