All Courts |
Federal Courts |
US Federal District Court Cases |
District Court of Appeal of Florida |
2000-03 |
-
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 1993); Farrow v. State, 573 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).AFFIRMED.
DELL, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Document Info
Docket Number: No. 4D98-4455
Citation Numbers: 754 So. 2d 82, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2239, 2000 WL 257113
Judges: Dell, Gross, Polen
Filed Date: 3/8/2000
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/18/2024