PATRICK B. COOPER, 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.
Patrick Cooper appeals his convictions for delivery and possession of cocaine, challenging the trial judge's decision to have the court reporter read back the entire testimony of Detective Groetsch to the jury during deliberations. The appellate court affirms the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's decision to comply with the jury's request for the full testimony rather than attempting to extract testimony about a specific date.
The trial judge did not abuse her discretion. The decision whether to have testimony read back to a jury is within the broad discretion of the trial judge, and because the jury clearly indicated it wanted the entire testimony of Detective Groetsch read to them, the trial judge acted appropriately in allowing this request.
[1] A trial judge has broad discretion in deciding whether to have testimony read back to the jury.
[2] A trial judge does not abuse discretion by directing the court reporter to read back the entire testimony of a witness when the jury requests specific testimony that is i…
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“The decision whether or not to have testimony read to the jury is within the broad discretion of the trial judge.”
Establishes the legal standard that appellate courts apply a deferential standard of review to trial judges' decisions regarding reading back testimony.
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 testimony about events that occurred on November 2, 1993. Detective Groetsch had testified about three d…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Patrick B. Cooper appeals his convictions for three counts of delivery of cocaine1 and three counts of possession of cocaine.2 We affirm. The single issue raised on appeal is whether the trial judge abused her discretion when she directed the court reporter to read back the entire testimony of Detective Groetsch to the jury.
During deliberations, the jury requested testimony about events that happened on a specific day. Detective Groetsch had testified about three dates and the jury wanted information about one date in particular. After discussing the issue with the attorneys, the trial judge noted that events on one specific day, 2 November 1993, were interspersed throughout the detective’s testimony and that it would be difficult for the court reporter to find matters about one particular date.
The defense attorney wanted the trial judge to instruct the jury to rely on their own independent recollections. The assistant state attorney wanted the entire testimony read back because it would help the jury and there was a potential for error if the court reporter attempted to select events of one day because the court reporter might miss something said regarding 2 November. The trial judge brought the jury back into the courtroom and the following colloquy occurred:
THE COURT: All right. I have your question, and it was, may we hear the testimony by the court reporter of Detective Groetsch on November 2nd, 1993.
And, as I recall, Detective Groetsch, they went back and forth, back and forth and sometimes talking about October 20, sometimes November 1st and sometimes November 2nd. I don’t want to have to have Randal [the court reporter] go through everything he’s got and try to pick out November 2nd in hopes that he catches it all. So we can do this one of two ways, either can you rely on what you all remember collectively, or I will have Randal read back all of it, if you think that would help.
Do you have any idea which way you would or would not to [sic] go with this, or do you want to talk about it?
THE FOREPERSON: From the consensus of the group I would say we would want to hear the entire thing. I just thought from your first response that we needed to be more definitive and that’s why we put just the November 2nd. So the whole thing would be fine.
It is obvious that the jury wanted the entire testimony of Detective Groetsch read to them. The decision whether or not to have testimony read to the jury is within the broad discretion of the trial judge. Coleman v. State, 610 So. 2d 1283, 1286 (Fla.1992) (citing Kelley v. State, 486 So. 2d 578 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 871, 107 S.Ct. 244, 93 L.Ed.2d 169 (1986)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 321, 126 L.Ed.2d 267 (1993).
The trial judge determined the exact nature of the question requested by the jury and, since the jury wanted the entire testimony read back to them, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion. Rodriguez v. State, 559 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We find no error. AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(1)(a)(1), Fla.Stat. (1991).
. § 893.13(1)(f), Fla.Stat. (1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kelley v. State, 486 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1986)
- Coleman v. State, 610 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1992)
- Rodriguez v. State, 559 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)