Norton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Norton v. State

516 So. 2d 1078, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2891, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11626, 1987 WL 2896

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2427

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 516 So. 2d 1078 (Norton 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

Norton v. State, 516 So. 2d 1078, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2891, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11626, 1987 WL 2896 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial, contending that reversible error occurred when during the jury’s deliberations the court communicated with the jury without the presence of, or notice to, defense counsel. We affirm.

Defendant was being tried on charges of burglary and aggravated assault. During the jury’s deliberations the jury advised the trial judge, through the bailiff, that the jury had a question regarding the burglary charge. The nature of the question was not given. The judge responded, through the bailiff, that the jury would have to rely upon its memory. No record was made of either communication. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the burglary charge and guilty on the aggravated assault charge.

The communications having concerned the burglary charge on which defendant was found not guilty, we conclude that the error in communicating with the jury without the presence of, or notice to, defense counsel was harmless. We do not conclude that Williams v. State, 488 So.2d 62 (Fla.1986), which involved a trial on only one charge of which defendant was convicted, requires otherwise. Cf. Hitchcock v. State, 413 So.2d 741 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 960, 103 S.Ct. 274, 74 L.Ed.2d 213 (1982).

Affirmed.

DANAHY, C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial, contending that reversible error occurred when during the jury’s deliberations the court communicated with the jury without the presence of, or notice to, defense counsel. We affirm.

Defendant was being tried on charges of burglary and aggravated assault. During the jury’s deliberations the jury advised the trial judge, through the bailiff, that the jury had a question regarding the burglary charge. The nature of the question was not given. The judge responded, through the bailiff, that the jury would have to rely upon its memory. No record was made of either communication. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the burglary charge and guilty on the aggravated assault charge.

The communications having concerned the burglary charge on which defendant was found not guilty, we conclude that the error in communicating with the jury without the presence of, or notice to, defense counsel was harmless. We do not conclude that Williams v. State, 488 So.2d 62 (Fla.1986), which involved a trial on only one charge of which defendant was convicted, requires otherwise. Cf. Hitchcock v. State, 413 So.2d 741 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 960, 103 S.Ct. 274, 74 L.Ed.2d 213 (1982).

Affirmed.

DANAHY, C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 So. 2d 1078, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2891, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11626, 1987 WL 2896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack