EUGENE LUCAS, 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.
The court held that allowing a jury to view a videotaped confession in the jury room during deliberations is within the trial court's sound discretion.
[1] A videotaped voluntary statement to police, containing admissions and details of the crime, is not considered deposition or out-of-court witness testimony for the purpose…
[2] A trial court has the discretion to allow a jury to review an admitted videotaped confession in the jury room during deliberations.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEugene Lucas was found guilty of murder and attempted murder. During deliberations, the jury was allowed to view a videotaped voluntary statement Luca…
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 Sound Discretion Of The Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Eugene Lucas appeals from the judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of First Degree Murder and Attempted First Degree Murder. The only issue raised on appeal which merits comment is Mr. Lucas’ claim that the trial court erred in sending a video cassette player into the jury room during deliberations, to enable the jury to Anew an exhibit in evidence — the videotape of his voluntary statement to the police.
The video recording was played for the jury during trial, transcribed by the court reporter into the record, and the videotape itself was admitted into evidence. Mr. Lucas testified on his own behalf at trial. Over the objection of Mr. Lucas, the trial judge provided the jury Avith the means to review the videotaped statement in the jury room.
The videotaped statement was not a deposition or out-of-court Avitness testimony. It was thus not excepted from the general rule allowing things received in evidence to be taken to the jury room under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.400(a)(3) and Young v. State, 645 So.2d 965 (Fla.1994). Mr. Lucas’ statement was against his interest, contained admissions of fact and details of the crimes, and there was no question that the statement was freely and voluntarily given after Mr. Lucas acknowledged his constitutional rights. The police statement was not a substitute for Mr. Lucas’ live testimony at trial. Compare Barnes v. State, 970 So.2d 332 (Fla.2007) (written transcript of defendant’s testimony in previous trial not properly allowed in jury room as exhibit for second trial; jury might question defendant’s decision not to testify in second trial).
The statement Mr. Lucas gave to the police was a confession. As was the case in Thomas v. State, 878 So.2d 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), the trial court’s decision to allow the jury to have access to the videotaped confession in the jury room was Avithin the court’s sound discretion and there was no abuse of that discretion.
AFFIRMED.
BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thorne v. State, 174 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
Authorities Cited
- Young v. State, 645 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1994)
- Shana Barnes v. State, 970 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2007)
- Thomas v. State, 878 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)