WILLIS FOSTER, DOC. NO. 389641, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed convictions for aggravated battery, attempted murder, and cocaine possession, holding that instructing the jury in the deliberation room without the defendant present, though procedurally problematic, constituted harmless error.
Instructing the jury in the deliberation room without the defendant present, though fraught with peril, constitutes harmless error when the prosecutor and defense counsel were present.
[1] Jury instructions given in the deliberation room without the defendant present, though procedurally improper, may constitute harmless error when prosecutor and defense co…
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 intelligenceWillis Foster was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon causing harm, attempted second-degree murder with a firearm, and possession of …
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 Right To Be Present cases and more on FLexlaw
Willis Foster appeals his convictions for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon causing harm, attempted second-degree murder with a firearm, and possession of cocaine. He asserts that reversible error occurred in regard to the manner in which the trial court instructed the jury on a note submitted to the court by the jurors during deliberations. Because any error in this regard was harmless, we affirm.
During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial court. In turn, the trial court discussed the handling of the note with the prosecutor, defense counsel, and Foster. After this discussion, the trial court instructed the jury in the deliberation room rather than in open court. Although the prosecutor and defense counsel were present in the deliberation room when the jury was instructed, Foster was not present. Instructing the jury in this manner was fraught with peril. Issues that arise from utilizing such a procedure can be avoided by returning the jury to the courtroom and instructing the jury in the presence of the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the defendant. Nonetheless, in this case any error that resulted was harmless. See, e.g., Meek v. State, 487 So.2d 1058 (Fla.1986).
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.