JACKY B. STRICKLAND, 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.
Strickland was charged with grand theft and multiple counts of forgery and uttering forged instruments related to fraudulent encyclopedia purchase contracts. The trial court allowed the jury to review non-admitted demonstrative charts during deliberations; Strickland appealed, arguing this was error. The court affirmed, finding any error harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
While allowing non-admitted evidence into the jury room during deliberations may constitute error, the harmless error rule applies here because the evidence against Strickland was overwhelming, making any such error harmless and non-reversible.
[1] Allowing a jury to use demonstrative charts not admitted into evidence during deliberations may constitute error.
[2] The harmless error rule may preclude reversal of a conviction despite the jury's use of demonstrative charts not admitted into evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 true that the allowance of non-admitted evidence or exhibits into the jury room during deliberations may constitute error.”
Establishes that allowing non-admitted exhibits in jury deliberations is potentially reversible error under prior precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStrickland was charged with grand theft exceeding $20,000, 65 counts of forgery, and 65 counts of uttering forged instruments based on fraudulent cont…
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 Uttering Forged Instruments cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Chief Judge.
Appellant was charged in the same information with one count of grand theft in excess of $20,000.00, sixty-five counts of forgery and sixty-five counts of uttering forged instruments. Those charges stemmed from sixty-five purported contracts for the purchase of World Book Encyclopedias. In presenting its case, the state made extensive use during trial of several large charts which detailed the false information contained in each contract and related those contracts to the various charges for which appellant was being tried. Although the contracts themselves, along with other documentary evidence, were properly admitted into evidence, the charts were used for demonstrative purposes only and were not offered into evidence.
During its deliberations on twenty of the forgery counts and the one grand theft count that had been permitted to go to the jury, the jury informed the court it was having difficulty determining which counts corresponded to the various alleged customers who had testified during trial. To aid them in reaching a verdict, they requested to be allowed to take with them into the jury room the state’s charts. That request was granted over defense objections, and eventually appellant was found guilty of grand theft of less than $20,-000.00 and of only one count of forgery. Appellant contends the court erred in allowing the jury to use the non-admitted charts prepared by the state. We disagree and affirm.
It is true that the allowance of non-admitted evidence or exhibits into the jury room during deliberations may constitute error. See Vasquez v. State, 54 Fla. 127, 44 So. 739 (1907), Beard v. State, 104 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). As with similar non-fundamental error, however, the harmless error rule may preclude reversal despite such error. See Vasquez, Beard. When presented with a situation in which the harmless error rule applies, our task is to determine whether “the error committed was so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.” State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984). Here, where the evidence against appellant was overwhelming, revealing, among other things, the shipment of the books directly to appellant’s home, expert testimony placing appellant’s forged handwriting on the contracts, and the disavowal by the purported customers of the contracts to purchase, any error that might have resulted from the jury’s use of charts prepared by the state can only be deemed harmless. Accordingly, appellant’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Myers v. State, 499 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…jection, exception or motion below). We would also point out that a violation of Rule 3.400 does not automatically require a reversal. Rather, the noncompliance must result in error so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial. Strickland v. State, 447 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), pet. for rev. den., 455 So. 2d 1033 (Fla.1984) (allowance of nonadmitted evidence or exhibits into jury room during deliberations may constitute error; however, harmless error rule may preclude reversal despite such error). At…
-
Carmine Brancaccio and Helen Brancaccio v. Jackal Corp., 641 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)….1990); McCormick on Evidence § 217 n. 3 (John W. Strong ed., 4th ed. 1992) (“[I]t would appear that most courts hold that the unadmitted exhibit must have been of a potentially prejudicial nature to warrant reversal.”). Compare Strickland v. State, 447 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA) (any error as to the trial court’s allowance of charts which were not in evidence to go into the jury room could only be deemed harmless because the evidence against defendant was overwhelming), rev. denied, 455 So. 2d 1033 (Fla.1984)…
-
Rhames v. State, 473 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…onitored the taping. In any event, we find admission of the transcripts, though error, to be harmless under the specific circumstances of this case, since Ross testified to the same inculpatory facts found in the transcript. Cf. Strickland v. State, 447 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), pet. for rev. den., 455 So. 2d 1033 (Fla.1984). Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his pretrial motion to dismiss Count VI (Case No. 84-17), the conspiracy count. Appellant argues that, as fr…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1984)
- Beard v. State, 104 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Vasquez v. State, 54 Fla. 127 (Fla. 1907)