Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Volk v. State

Volk v. State

754 So. 2d 82, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2239, 2000 WL 257113
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 8, 2000
DocketNo. 4D98-4455
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 754 So. 2d 82 (Volk 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
Volk v. State, 754 So. 2d 82, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2239, 2000 WL 257113 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

DELL, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
754 So. 2d 82, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2239, 2000 WL 257113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/volk-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.