Kramer v. State, 882 So. 2d 512

PER CURIAM.

During jury deliberations, the jury requested a magnifying glass. Through the bailiff, the judge informed the jury that one was not available. However, neither the state nor the defendant were informed of the jury’s request. Because this was a communication outside the express notice requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410, we analyze it under the harmless error standard. Williams v. State, 488 So.2d 62, 64 (Fla.1986); Key v. State, 760 So.2d 278, 278-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Using that standard, we affirm.

WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Kramer v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Sep 22, 2004

Citations: 882 So. 2d 512; 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13845; 2004 WL 2101781; No. 4D02-4803

Docket Number: No. 4D02-4803

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.