Bautista v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bautista v. State

557 So. 2d 104, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 693, 1990 WL 8642

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 1990

DocketNo. 89-847

StatusPublished

This text of 557 So. 2d 104 (Bautista v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bautista v. State, 557 So. 2d 104, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 693, 1990 WL 8642 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant seeks review of his conviction for one count of armed kidnapping and one count of unarmed kidnapping.

Appellant argues that the trial judge committed reversible error by communicating with the jury during the deliberation process outside the presence of Appellant and his counsel even though Appellant’s counsel subsequently concurred in such communication.

Any such communication was non-prejudicial since defense counsel subsequently concurred in same. Moreover, such communication was not in response to a jury request for reinstruction under rule 3.410, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, but merely was a repetition of earlier admonitions that the jury not deliberate outside the jury room. See McGriff v. State, 553 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) wherein a similar juror communication was deemed non-prejudicial where it was subsequently concurred in by counsel and pertained only to housekeeping or administrative matters.

Appellant also challenges the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. His argument in essence goes to the credibility of a defense witness who identified the [105]*105defendant. The matter was properly left to the trier of fact to decide.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendant seeks review of his conviction for one count of armed kidnapping and one count of unarmed kidnapping.

Appellant argues that the trial judge committed reversible error by communicating with the jury during the deliberation process outside the presence of Appellant and his counsel even though Appellant’s counsel subsequently concurred in such communication.

Any such communication was non-prejudicial since defense counsel subsequently concurred in same. Moreover, such communication was not in response to a jury request for reinstruction under rule 3.410, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, but merely was a repetition of earlier admonitions that the jury not deliberate outside the jury room. See McGriff v. State, 553 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) wherein a similar juror communication was deemed non-prejudicial where it was subsequently concurred in by counsel and pertained only to housekeeping or administrative matters.

Appellant also challenges the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. His argument in essence goes to the credibility of a defense witness who identified the [105]*105defendant. The matter was properly left to the trier of fact to decide.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 104, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 693, 1990 WL 8642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bautista-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack