Volk v. State, 754 So. 2d 82

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s “standard response” to the jury’s request ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‍for the defendant’s testimony was error. See Rigdon v. State, 621 So.2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Huhn v. State, 511 So.2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Roper v. State, 608 So.2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). However, in this ease ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‍we find the error to be harmless. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999); Gonzalez v. State, 624 So.2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Farrow v. State, 573 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

AFFIRMED.

DELL, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Volk v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Mar 8, 2000

Citations: 754 So. 2d 82; 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2239; 2000 WL 257113; No. 4D98-4455

Docket Number: No. 4D98-4455

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.