State v. Franklin, 79146
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | KOGAN; BARKETT; McDONALD; GRIMES; McDONALD; GRIMES |
| Citation | 618 So.2d 171 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. S170 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Roosevelt FRANKLIN, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 79146,79146 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1993 |
Page 171
v.
Roosevelt FRANKLIN, Respondent.
Rehearing Denied June 1, 1993.
Page 172
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles T. Faircloth, Jr. and Charlie McCoy, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for respondent.
KOGAN, Judge.
We review Franklin v. State, 590 So.2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), to answer a certified question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
At the close of Franklin's trial, the jury was instructed on two inferences of guilt: (1) the inference from stealthy entry, and (2) the inference from possession of recently stolen property. After deliberations began, the jury submitted the following question to the trial court which the trial judge read into the record:
Could we hear or see that portion of the instructions to the jury concerning inferences that may be used to conclude guilt of burglary of a dwelling? There was an element concerning observing an individual in possession of items taken from a dwelling.
Franklin, 590 So.2d at 476. The record reflects that the trial court then gave a copy of the entire set of written instructions to the jury without notifying either counsel. Id.
Thereafter the jury returned a verdict of guilty of burglary of a dwelling and the lesser included offense of petit theft. Franklin appealed his conviction to the First District Court of Appeal, which reversed the conviction based on the above acts of the trial court and this Court's decision in Williams v. State, 488 So.2d 62 (Fla.1986). However, pursuant to a request by the State, the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question to this Court:
DOES A TRIAL COURT COMMIT PER SE REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO THE JURORS' REQUEST TO GIVE THEM AN ADDITIONAL PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS PREVIOUSLY FURNISHED THEM, IT GIVES THEM INSTEAD AN ENTIRE SET OF THE WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS, WITHOUT PROVIDING PRIOR NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENSE AND THE STATE?
Franklin, 590 So.2d at 477.
In Ivory v. State, 351 So.2d 26 (Fla.1977), this Court held that it was prejudicial error for a trial judge, in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410, 1 to respond to a request from the jury for additional instructions, definitions, and copies of certain statements unless the defendant, the defendant's counsel, and the prosecutor are present and have the opportunity to participate in formulating a response to the request.
In Williams this Court held that a trial court's failure to notify the prosecutor and defense counsel of the jury's request for a copy of the jury instructions and the trial court's resulting communications with the jury constituted per se reversible error under rule 3.410. Williams, 488 So.2d at 64. In Williams we reaffirmed the rule announced in Ivory. We stated that under rule 3.410 per se reversible error occurred if there was any communication between
Page 173
the jury and the trial court pertaining to the jury's request for items enumerated in rule 3.410 outside the presence of the defendant, defendant's counsel and the prosecutor. Id.; see also Ivory, 351 So.2d at 28 (England, J., concurring) (recognizing that the majority decision in Ivory was intended to have a prophylactic effect).In the case sub judice the State invites us to recede from Williams and its progenitor Ivory, or limit them to their facts. The State urges us to dispose of the prophylactic per se reversible error rule and instead expand the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State, 5D01-3211.
...and to ensure that errors that are so fraught with prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial are corrected. See State v. Franklin, 618 So.2d 171 (Fla. There are many examples of per se reversible error that are not subject to harmless error analysis: failing to conduct a Faretta inqu......
-
Merricks v. State, 2D00-789.
...The court reaffirmed its holding in Ivory in subsequent decisions. See Mills v. State, 620 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 1993); State v. Franklin, 618 So.2d 171 (Fla.1993); Colbert v. State, 569 So.2d 433 (Fla.1990); Williams v. State, 488 So.2d 62 (Fla.1986); Curtis v. State, 480 So.2d 1277 (Fla.1985).......
-
State v. Merricks, SC01-1906.
...communication with the jury are so great as to warrant the imposition of a prophylactic per se reversible error rule." State v. Franklin, 618 So.2d 171, 173 (Fla. 1993). However, we have also noted, "The per se reversible error rule announced in Ivory is prophylactic in nature and must be i......
-
Thomas v. State, 91719.
...Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410 and that the violation of this rule is per se reversible error. As we stated in State v. Franklin, 618 So.2d 171, 173 The per se reversible error rule ... exists for two distinct reasons. First, it is clear that due process requires that the defendant and de......