Alexander v. State, 89-1237

Citation16 Fla. L. Weekly 681,575 So.2d 1370
Decision Date13 March 1991
Docket NumberNo. 89-1237,89-1237
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Parties16 Fla. L. Weekly 681 Eddie B. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Susan D. Cline, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lynn G. Waxman, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

Appellant, Eddie Alexander, appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence of three and one-half years in the Department of Corrections.

Five appellate points have been presented, all dealing with alleged errors occurring during the trial. We have carefully considered all of said points and find reversible error demonstrated in only one, having to do with communication between the court and jury without counsel being present and afforded an opportunity to present argument and objections.

It appears from this record that the jury returned to the courtroom during its deliberations and presented a written question to the court: "May we have the police reports admitted as evidence for further review?" The trial judge held a short colloquy 1 1 with the jury in which he told them the reports were inadmissible and that they were to decide the case based upon the evidence they had. As he put it: "You've got to play with the deck you have been dealt." Appellant contends in his brief that counsel was not present when this occurred and thus had no opportunity to participate in the ruling or make any record of their objection as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410.

Appellee contends in its brief that the colloquy took place in the presence of counsel. Oddly enough, neither party cites to any part of the record for its statement and we have found none. Furthermore, we relinquished jurisdiction to fill in the gaps in the transcript which might show that counsel was present. As one might surmise, neither the trial judge nor counsel, with the multitude of work they are involved in, could remember the situation vividly enough to state the fact of what had transpired. Nevertheless, we note that the record contains a progress report or "blue card," which states what transpired in the courtroom and concludes with the stamped statement, "There being no objection to the instructions given by the court, court recessed at 10:15 A.M. pending the call of the jury." Appellee argued that this cryptic note means counsel was present and failed to make any objection.

The Supreme Court of Florida in Ivory 2 and Williams 3 held that a trial judge may not respond to a jury's request for additional instructions without both counsel being present and having an opportunity to participate in the action to be taken by the court. Violation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Chavez v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 2 Julio 1997
    ...court or the State needed to establish that all due process requirements had been met. See Coney, 653 So.2d at 1013; Alexander v. State, 575 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Here, the trial court erred by allowing the jury selection process to proceed without determining whether the defendan......
  • Matthews v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 29 Enero 1997
    ...is upon the trial court or the State to make the record show that all requirements of due process have been met. Alexander v. State, 575 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). ...
  • Ellis v. State, 96-2011
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 2 Julio 1997
    ...or the State to make the record show that the dictates of Coney have been complied with. See id. at 910 n. 2; Alexander v. State, 575 So.2d 1370, 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Here, neither the trial court nor the State has met this burden as they have failed to demonstrate that Appellant was p......
  • Stephens v. State, 5D00-1292.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 9 Febrero 2001
    ...remaining questions. The record was also silent as to Stephens' presence during any of the discussions. Pursuant to Alexander v. State, 575 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), this Court relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court to fill in the gaps in the original record to determine if coun......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT