SERITA TURNER A/K/A SUZANNE CLARK, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1983-05-17
No. 82-1502
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
431 So. 2d 328 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases
Opinion of the Court
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Under the controlling provisions of Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.400(d), counsel need not be present when the items introduced into evidence are provided to the jury. Since, contrary to the appellant’s contention, no error of any kind, therefore, occurred when the exhibits were sent to the jury room in the absence of the defendant or her attorney, Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1977), which involved a violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.410, is inapplicable. For this reason, we need not determine whether the prophylactic per se reversible error rule of Ivory has been abrogated by Hitchcock v. State, 413 So. 2d 741 (Fla.1982) or Rose v. State, 425 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1982).

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Prieto, 439 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
    …(1983), the Florida Supreme Court appears to have receded from Ivory, holding that such communications may constitute harmless error. Since the Ivory holding is not pertinent to this case, again we need not decide the question. See Turner v. State, 431 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). More importantly, the challenged “communication” in this case was simply a denial by the court, in its discretion, of the jury’s request to have certain testimony read back by the stenographer. The mere denial of the request in…
  • Morgan v. State, 471 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
    …le of Criminal Procedure 3.400(d)1 controls situations in which the jury is provided with items previously introduced into evidence. The rule does not require the presence of either counsel or the defendants Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.400(d); Turner v. State, 431 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DC A), review denied, 438 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1983). Since only previously admitted evidence was provided to the jury, there was clearly no error. The second question for consideration is whether the defendant’s presence is required when the c…
  • Smith v. State, 453 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
    …ffenses. This is not within the purview of Rule 3.410. If there was error, we find it to have been harmless. Hitchcock v. State, 413 So. 2d [*507] 741 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 960, 103 S.Ct. 274, 74 L.Ed.2d 213 (1982). And see Turner v. State, 431 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 438 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1983) and Rose v. State, 425 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1982), pet. for rev. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 1883, 76 L.Ed.2d 812 (1983). As we have previously noted, a similar request for the penalties was…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw