Thiefault v. State, 93-3583
| Decision Date | 07 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-3583,93-3583 |
| Citation | 655 So.2d 1277 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1348 Kenneth THIEFAULT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael S. Pasano and Jennifer Coberly, Zuckerman, Spaeder, Taylor & Evans, Miami, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Anne Carrion Pinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Defendant, Kenneth Thiefault, appeals his convictions for racketeering, securities fraud and second and third-degree grand theft. The state concedes, and we agree, that a reversal of defendant's convictions is mandated because during jury deliberations the bailiff provided the jury with unauthorized access to a tape player which allowed the jury to review defendant's taped statement without the knowledge of the trial court, the attorneys and defendant.
Shortly after the trial court released the jury following its first day of deliberations, defendant's counsel noticed the courtroom bailiff carrying a tape player out of the jury room. Defendant's counsel had not been informed of any request by the jury to review evidence and immediately objected. The tape player contained a tape of defendant's sworn statement to police. Although the tape had been admitted into evidence, portions relating to defendant's prior arrests had been excluded. Upon publication of the taped statement to the jury, the tape had been cued to a point past the inadmissible portion.
After further inquiry, the trial court learned from the bailiff that the jurors had asked for a tape player and he had given one to them. It was undisputed that the bailiff had not informed the parties or the trial court of this request and acted on his own. The trial court then learned that the jury had listened to the entire tape, including the inadmissible portions. After receiving assurances from the jurors that they could disregard the inadmissible statements, the trial court denied defendant's motion for mistrial. The trial court gave a curative instruction, instructing the jurors to disregard what they had heard. However, we conclude this error could not be cured other than by declaring a mistrial and granting a new trial.
As the state now concedes, the trial court had no choice but to grant a mistrial because what occurred in this case directly violated rule 3.410 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure which governs the jury's request to review evidence. Additionally, what occurred led to a violation of rule 3.400 which prohibits unauthorized materials in the jury room. See generally State v. Hamilton, 574 So.2d 124 (Fla.1991).
Rule 3.410 provides that any request by a deliberating jury can be acted on only after notice to the prosecuting attorney and to counsel for the defendant. In Ivory v. State, 351 So.2d 26, 28 (Fla.1977), the supreme court held that a violation of rule 3.410 constitutes per se reversible error. In Ivory, the trial court had received requests from the jury to view the jury instructions, the defendant's statement, the medical examiner's report and the legal definitions of particular crimes. Without notifying the defendant, his counsel or the prosecutor, the trial court ordered the bailiff to deliver the documentary exhibits requested. It was later discovered that the medical examiner's report had never been admitted into evidence.
In adopting a per se rule of reversal where communications between the court and the jury occur outside the presence of the attorneys and the defendant, the supreme court explained that "any communication with the jury outside the presence of the prosecutor, the defendant, and defendant's counsel is so fraught with potential prejudice that it cannot be considered harmless." Id. Pointing to the wisdom and practicality of such a rule, the supreme court observed that the matter concerning the medical examiner's report probably would never have occurred if the proper procedure had been followed. See also Mills v. State, 620 So.2d 1006 (Fla.1993); Williams v. State, 488 So.2d 62 (Fla.1986).
In Lacue v. State, 562 So.2d 388, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), this court concluded that the trial court committed reversible error where it had received and responded to a jury question and allowed the jury to replay the victim's taped statement, without notice to and in the absence of defense counsel, even though the entire tape had been previously admitted into evidence. Here, the error committed was compounded by the fact that the jury heard not only the portion of the tape which had been admitted into evidence, but also portions which had been excluded.
The excluded portions referred impermissibly to de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Merricks
...634 So.2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Coley v. State, 431 So.2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). As the Fourth District noted in Thiefault v. State, 655 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995): During a trial, the bailiff is the link between judge and jury. The bailiff is "the intermediary between the court and......
-
Thomas v. State
...the defendant or his counsel." (Emphasis supplied). See also, e.g., McKinney v. State, 579 So.2d 80 (Fla.1991); Thiefault v. State, 655 So.2d 1277, 1278-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). ...
-
Tinker v. State
...declared that it "made [its] ruling" and was "going to have the deputy bring the jurors in." This was error. See Thiefault v. State , 655 So. 2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (where unauthorized materials have been presented to the jury during deliberations and the defense does not have th......
-
Myers v. Florida Parole and Probation Com'n, 97-0108
...a general rule, any mention at trial of prior arrests which did not result in convictions is clearly improper. See Thiefault v. State, 655 So.2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Without deciding in this opinion whether arrests may properly be considered in making a parole decision, we find t......