Volk v. State , 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2239 ( 2000 )


Menu:
  • 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 *831993); 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