Volk v. State
754 So. 2d 82, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2239, 2000 WL 257113
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 8, 2000·No. No. 4D98-4455·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
The trial court’s “standard response” to the jury’s request for the defendant’s testimony was error. See Rigdon v. State, 621 So.2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Huhn v. State, 511 So.2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Roper v. State, 608 So.2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). However, in this ease we find the error to be harmless. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999); Gonzalez v. State, 624 So.2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA [83]*831993); Farrow v. State, 573 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Volk v. State, 754 So. 2d 82, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2239, 2000 WL 257113 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).
754 So. 2d 82 (Volk v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Francois v. State
65 So. 3d 632 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Barrow v. State
27 So. 3d 211 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)