Background

• Barrow was charged with first-degree murder of Rae Michelle Turner; victim's body was never found.
• At trial, the jury heard testimony from multiple witnesses about the party and events leading to the death.
• During deliberations, the jury asked for transcripts of specific witnesses; the court responded that no transcripts were available and instructed to rely on the record.
• Barrow's defense counsel argued for read-backs and to inform the jury about read-back options; the court declined, citing discretion to deny read-backs.
• The Fourth District vacated Barrow’s conviction, holding the trial court abused its discretion by not informing about read-backs and by denying the transcript request without clarifying read-back availability, and remanded for a new trial.
• This Court granted discretionary review to resolve conflict between the Fourth District and Hazuri (Third District) on whether read-backs must be explained when transcripts are requested.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Roper v. State, 608 So.2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (read-back availability should be communicated to jury)
• Avila v. State, 781 So.2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (no transcripts but read-back option should be discussed to avoid confusion)
• Hazuri v. State, 23 So.3d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (trial court erred by not informing about read-back; conflict resolved)
• Barrow v. State, 27 So.3d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (jury transcript request and read-back considerations; district decision cited)
• Johnson v. State, 53 So.3d 1003 (Fla. 2010) (harmless error considerations for evidentiary issues)
• Sutton v. State, 51 So.2d 725 (Fla.1951) (jury rights to inquire and aid in decision making)
• Ventura v. State, 29 So.3d 1086 (Fla.2010) (harmless error framework under DiGuilio)