Summary
holding that trial judge's response to jury's request for a magnifying glass without informing either the State or the defendant of request was outside the express notice requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410, but was harmless error
Summary of this case from Gonzalez v. StateOpinion
No. 4D02-4803.
September 22, 2004.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ronald J. Rothschild, Judge; L.T. Case No. 00-19841 CF10A.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laurel R. Wiley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
During jury deliberations, the jury requested a magnifying glass. Through the bailiff, the judge informed the jury that one was not available. However, neither the state nor the defendant were informed of the jury's request. Because this was a communication outside the express notice requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410, we analyze it under the harmless error standard. Williams v. State, 488 So.2d 62, 64 (Fla. 1986); Key v. State, 760 So.2d 278, 278-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Using that standard, we affirm.
WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.