DAVID RUSSELL DEGEER, 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.
DeGeer appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument, claiming the bailiff violated court rules by communicating with jurors about whether a photograph was admitted into evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the bailiff's clarification that the photograph was not in evidence did not violate applicable rules or statutes.
The court held that there was neither a violation of the rule nor a departure from the statute because the bailiff's response was merely the fulfillment of his obligation to ensure jurors received only properly admitted exhibits, not an instruction on law or prohibited communication about trial-related matters.
[1] A bailiff's response to a jury's inquiry about whether an exhibit has been admitted into evidence, confirming it has not been admitted, does not constitute an instruction…
[2] A bailiff's duty includes ensuring the jury receives only exhibits that have been properly admitted into evidence.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“One of the bailiff's responsibilities is to see that the jury is furnished with all exhibits which are introduced into evidence. Therefore, the bailiff's response to the jury's inquiry really amounted to nothing more than the fulfillment of his obligation only to permit the jury to receive those exhibits which had been properly admitted.”
Court's rationale for why the bailiff's communication did not violate the rules, emphasizing the bailiff's legitimate administrative function
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial in a forged instrument case, jurors asked the bailiff whether a photograph exhibited by an F.B.I. fingerprint expert was admitted into ev…
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 Communication With Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
In this appeal from a conviction for uttering a forged instrument, the only point worthy of discussion pertains to certain communications between the jury and the bailiff during the trial. After the jury verdict had been published and the jury polled, the following transpired:
“MR. BRINKMEYER: Your Honor, before the jury leaves, there’s one matter that I wish to bring to the Court’s attention. The bailiff has informed me that there was a conversation between himself and members of the jury regarding evidence that was not admitted, exhibits which were not admitted into evidence, and I wish to move for a mistrial at this time. And I would request that the Court poll the jury as to the nature of the conversation between the bailiff and the jurors.
THE COURT: What bailiff was that?
MR. BRINKMEYER: Mr. Wilson.
THE COURT: And what was the conversation, Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON: They asked me if the photograph that the F.B.I. had was in evidence, and I came out and I asked Mr. Holmes [Assistant State Attorney] if it was in evidence, he said no, and I came in and I told the jurors it was not in evidence.
THE COURT: Was the conversation any different Mr. MR. HAMMAC [Jury Foreman]: That’s correct. THE COURT: The Court will deny your motion and would excuse you. Thank you.”
Appellant contends that this colloquy constituted a violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.410 (requiring additional instructions to the jury to be given in open court) and Section 918.07, Florida Statutes (1975) (prohibiting the officer in charge of the jury from communicating with jurors on any subject connected with the trial).
Our Supreme Court has recently held that a violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.410 is prejudicial error regardless of whether the judge’s instruction is legally correct. Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1977) (Opinion filed July 14,1977). Whether a violation of Section 918.07, Florida Statutes (1975), is automatically prejudicial, at least where the contents of the communication are clearly known and apparently harmless, is not quite so clear. Compare Ennis v. State, 300 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) with Randolph v. State, 336 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); cf. Ivory v. State, supra.
In any event, we believe there was neither a violation of the rule nor a departure from the statute in the instant case. Referring to the record, it is obvious that the jury was interested in seeing a photograph that an F.B.I. fingerprint expert had exhibited to the jury but which was never admitted into evidence. One of the bailiff’s responsibilities is to see that the jury is furnished with all exhibits which are introduced into evidence. Therefore, the bailiff’s response to the jury’s inquiry really amounted to nothing more than the fulfillment of his obligation only to permit the jury to receive those exhibits which had been properly admitted. This did not constitute an instruction on the law or a prohibited communication with the jurors on a subject connected with the trial.
AFFIRMED.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crews v. State, 442 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…is case is that no communication was shown to have occurred between the bailiff, the deputy and the jurors. In furnishing the jury with an item in evidence and the mechanism to enable them to see it, the bailiff was acting properly. Degeer v. State, 349 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The accomplishment of physical transportation by the deputy because the bailiff had a bad back does not change the result here. Although there was a communication by the prosecutor to the jury foreman, we do not think it require…1 / 2
-
State v. Hunter, 358 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…request for further information summarily denied, outside the presence of the defendant and his counsel. As such, the defendant’s case was not prejudiced in any way and the granting of the new trial was an abuse of discretion. Cf., Degeer v. State, 349 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting a new trial is REVERSED with instructions to reinstate the conviction for second degree murder. REVERSED and REMANDED. ALDERMAN, C. J., and LETTS', J., concur.…
-
Walker v. State, 546 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…rry v. State, 496 So. 2d 822 (Fla.1986). Furthermore, the bailiff’s statement that the map was not in evidence did not violate section 918.07. After a bailiff-jury colloquy similar to that in this case [*1168] the second district in Degeer v. State, 349 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1978), found no violation of section 918.07 or the rules of criminal procedure. There the bailiff told members of the jury that a certain photograph was not in evidence. The court held that “[o]n…
Authorities Cited
- Donnie Lee Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1977)
- Ennis v. State, 300 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Randolph v. State, 336 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)