Turner v. State

Serita TURNER a/K/a Suzanne Clark, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 17, 1983.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-05-17

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1990

5 state decisions

Relies on Rose v. State · Ivory v. State · 413 So. 2d 741 - Hitchcock v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-05-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Rory S. Stein, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Marti A. Rothenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

¶4SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

¶5Under 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).

¶6Affirmed.