From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 17, 1983
431 So. 2d 328 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Opinion

No. 82-1502.

May 17, 1983.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Arthur Winton, J.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Rory S. Stein, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Marti A. Rothenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.


Under the controlling provisions of Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.400(d), counsel need not be present when the items introduced into evidence are provided to the jury. Since, contrary to the appellant's contention, no error of any kind, therefore, occurred when the exhibits were sent to the jury room in the absence of the defendant or her attorney, Ivory v. State, 351 So.2d 26 (Fla. 1977), which involved a violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.410, is inapplicable. For this reason, we need not determine whether the prophylactic per se reversible error rule of Ivory has been abrogated by Hitchcock v. State, 413 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1982) or Rose v. State, 425 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1982).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Turner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 17, 1983
431 So. 2d 328 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
Case details for

Turner v. State

Case Details

Full title:SERITA TURNER A/K/A SUZANNE CLARK, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: May 17, 1983

Citations

431 So. 2d 328 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Citing Cases

State v. Prieto

Since the Ivory holding is not pertinent to this case, again we need not decide the question. See Turner v.…

Smith v. State

Hitchcock v. State, 413 So.2d 741 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 960, 103 S.Ct. 274, 74 L.Ed.2d 213 (1982).…