NAKIA SIMMONS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Trial judges have broad discretion in deciding whether to read back testimony to the jury, and the trial court properly exercised that discretion.
[1] Trial judges exercise broad discretion in determining whether testimony should be read back to the jury, including decisions about practicality and scope of such read-bac…
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 intelligence“It is well established that trial judges have broad discretion in deciding whether to read back testimony.”
Francis v. State, establishing the foundational legal principle regarding trial court discretion over testimony read-backs
Nakia Simmons was convicted in circuit court in Broward County. The trial involved issues related to jury instructions regarding read-back of testimon…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Francis v. State, 808 So. 2d 110, 130 (Fla. 2001) (“It is well established that trial judges have broad discretion in deciding whether to read back testimony.”); Simmons v. State, 334 So. 2d 265, 266–67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (noting that a read-back taking seven hours was impractical); Castellon-Lopez v. State, 230 So. 3d 518, 519–20 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (concluding the trial court properly (1) explained to the jury it could get a read-back and (2) instructed the jury to “specify which portions of the testimony it wishe[d] to review,” and explaining that “[r]ather than misleading the jury into believing that read-backs are prohibited, the trial court specifically informed the jury that a read-back is permitted, and asked the jury to specify what portions of the testimony it would like to hear”). MAY, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carlton A. Francis v. State, 808 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2001)
- Marsland v. Julien, 334 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Freddy Castellon-Lopez v. State, 230 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)