CLARENCE LEE DIXON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Court affirmed Dixon's conviction, holding that the trial court's failure to notify defense counsel of a jury note requesting food or clarification was harmless error where the note did not implicate Rule 3.410 and did not influence the verdict.
The trial court's failure to notify defense counsel of a jury note requesting food or procedural clarification constitutes harmless error when the note does not implicate Rule 3.410 and does not influence the conviction.
[1] Failure to notify defense counsel of a jury note requesting food or procedural information, where the note does not implicate Rule 3.410, constitutes harmless error if th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDixon was convicted at trial. After the jury retired to deliberate, it sent a note to the trial court requesting food, asking to see admitted pictures…
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 Jury Deliberations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In Dixon v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D394, — So. 2d -, 1999 WL 68529 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb.10, 1999), the defendant contended that he was entitled to a new trial because the lower court faded to notify his trial counsel that the jury had sent a note to the trial court after the jury had retired to consider the verdict. The defendant contended that the jury note implicated Rule 3.410, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure. Because there was an absence of evidence as to the note’s contents, this Court remanded the cause “for an evidentiary hearing to give the defendant an opportunity to supplement the record with sworn affidavits, testimony and evidence that may shed light as to the contents.”
On remand, the trial court conducted two evidentiary hearings wherein the bailiff, the court clerk, the foreperson, and four jurors testified as to the contents of the note. The testimony reflected that the jurors’ note was a request for food, a request to see some pictures admitted into evidence, or an inquiry as to how long deliberations would last. Because Rule 3.410 was not implicated, the failure to advise counsel of the jury’s note is subject to harmless error analysis. Bradley v. State, 513 So. 2d 112, 113 (Fla.1987). On these facts, we find that the jury’s note did not influence the defendant’s conviction and that any error was harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, the defendant’s judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Bradley v. State, 513 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1987)