CARLOS HENAO, 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.
Carlos Henao appeals his conviction for two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and one count of carrying a concealed firearm. The appellate court affirms, finding no error despite the discovery of a juror's note requesting a definition of aggravated assault in the trial court file, as there is no indication the trial court ever saw or responded to the note.
The court affirmed the judgment, finding no error. The discovery of the juror's note does not mandate per se reversal because it would be sheer speculation to conclude that the court ever saw the note or responded to it, and there is no indication in the record that trial counsel ever asserted improper communication or failure to communicate by the court.
[1] A juror's written request for a definition of a crime, found in the court file without any indication of whether the court received, responded to, or even saw the request…
[2] A party seeking to establish error based on a juror's communication with the court must demonstrate that the communication occurred and that it was improper or resulted 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“However, it would be sheer speculation to conclude that the court ever saw the note or responded to it, with or without consulting with counsel.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that absent evidence the trial court saw or acted on the juror's note, reversal is not warranted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenao was convicted by jury on two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and one count of carrying a concealed firearm. A piece of paper signed …
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 Per Se Reversal Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We grant Appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our opinion of May 24, 1995, and republish the opinion as follows:
Pursuant to jury verdict, Appellant was convicted on two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and one count of carrying a concealed firearm. The trial court record contains a piece of paper, signed by a juror, requesting a “definition of aggravated assault.” There is no indication in the record how that paper came to be placed in the file, whether the court responded to it, or even whether it ever came to the court’s attention.
Appellant contends that the simple discovery, apparently incident to counsel preparing the appeal, of the paper in the court file mandates per se reversal as a violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410. See, e.g., Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1977); Curtis v. State, 480 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1985). However, it would be sheer speculation to conclude that the court ever saw the note or responded to it, with or without consulting with counsel. We note that to this date there is no indication, such as by motion for new trial, that trial counsel ever asserted that there was any improper communication or failure to communicate by the court. Neither does appellate counsel make such an outright assertion other than by way of speculation.
We also note that the record reflects that written instructions, with typographical errors “cleaned up,” were delivered to the jury with the consent of the defense. Not only was no objection raised to the instructions, but apparently defense counsel delivered them to the bailiff to give to the jury. Nor was any objection raised at trial or on appeal concerning the court’s charge on aggravated assault. No request has been made that we relinquish jurisdiction to establish a record pursuant to rule 9.200(b)(4), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The entire issue on appeal arises solely by virtue of the paper discovered in the record and the diligence of appellate counsel in raising the issue.
Finding all cited caselaw inapposite, and finding no error as to any issue raised, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
GLICKSTEIN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Donnie Lee Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1977)
- Curtis v. State, 480 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1985)