ARTHUR KRAMER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ARTHUR KRAMER, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
882 So. 2d 512
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2004)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
During jury deliberations, the jury requested a magnifying glass. Through the bailiff, the judge informed the jury that one was not available. However, neither the state nor the defendant were informed of the jury’s request. Because this was a communication outside the express notice requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410, we analyze it under the harmless error standard. Williams v. State, 488 So. 2d 62, 64 (Fla.1986); Key v. State, 760 So. 2d 278, 278-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Using that standard, we affirm.
WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 136 So. 3d 1125 (Fla. 2014)…s to influence the jury in reaching a verdict; instead it allows jurors to fully and fairly consider documents or items that were introduced into evidence. Only two Florida cases mention a jury’s request for a magnifying glass. See Kramer v. State, 882 So. 2d 512, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that trial judge’s response to jury’s request for a magnifying glass without informing either the State or the defendant of request was outside the express notice requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 488 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1986)
- KEY v. State, 760 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)