Delestre v. State
103 So. 3d 1026
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Delestre timely appeals his convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of heroin.
- The jury requested transcripts of all testimony during deliberations and the court, with consent of both sides, said the jury should rely on its collective memory rather than read-backs.
- Delestre contends the trial court committed reversible error by inadequately addressing the jury's request for transcripts and by not informing them of the read-back right.
- Hazuri v. State and State v. Barrow require that a read-back right be explained and that denial of transcripts not mislead the jury.
- The court held no fundamental error occurred and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of transcript read-back instruction was fundamental error | Delestre argues it was reversible error | State contends no fundamental error given discretion and defense consent | Not fundamental error; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hazuri v. State, 91 So.3d 836 (Fla. 2012) (read-back rights and non-misleading denial of transcripts required)
- Barrow v. State, 91 So.3d 826 (Fla. 2012) (read-back rights must be explained; avoid suggesting read-backs are prohibited)
- Frasilus v. State, 46 So.3d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (duty to inform about read-back may be strategic considerations)
- Hendricks v. State, 34 So.3d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (defense counsel strategic considerations in not requesting read-back)
- Smith v. State, 521 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1988) (fundamental error doctrine rare; jurisdictional or compelling justice need)