Hazuri v. State
91 So. 3d 836
| Fla. | 2012Background
- Hazuri seeks review of a Third District decision holding trial court did not err regarding jury read-back rights after a transcript request.
- Jury deliberations: after hours, jury advised they could not reach a verdict; directed to resume next day; next day they asked for trial transcripts.
- Trial court instructed jurors to rely on their recollection, over defense request to inform them of read-back options.
- Third District held there was no abuse, relying on Rule 3.400 and 3.410 and distinguishing Barrow/Avila/Roper.
- Hazuri argues the court should have informed jurors of read-back rights and should have clarified which portion of testimony to review; this Court adopts Barrow/Avila/Roper approach and reverses.
- This Court concludes reversible error occurred; Hazuri is entitled to a new trial and the Third District’s decision is quashed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to inform read-back rights when transcripts were requested is reversible error | Hazuri argues the court misled jurors about read-backs by not informing them of the right. | State contends discretion to grant read-backs exists and no obligation to inform absent a request. | Reversible error; new trial required. |
| Whether failure to seek specification of testimony when general transcript request was made is reversible error | Hazuri asserts the jury should have been told to specify the portion sought for review. | State argues no obligation to require specification and may respond per rule. | Reversible error; new trial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrow v. State, 27 So.3d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (read-back rights and court's duty to inform jurors)
- Avila v. State, 781 So.2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (partial read-backs and misinstruction concerns)
- Roper v. State, 608 So.2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (jurors’ request to see testimony requires informing read-back availability)
- Johnson v. State, 53 So.3d 1003 (Fla. 2010) (per se reversible error when preemptively denying read-backs blocks proper inquiry)
- Sutton v. State, 51 So.2d 725 (Fla.1951) (jury's right to ask questions to aid fact-finding)
- Francois v. State, 65 So.3d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (read-back guidance considerations in the Fourth DCA)
- Hendricks v. State, 34 So.3d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (assessing read-back instruction issues post-frasilus)