573 So. 2d 161 - Pineiro v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2014

12 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

PER CURIAM.

¶1We affirm on the authority of the en banc opinion of this court in Farrow v. State, 573 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. GARRETT, J., specially concurs with opinion. GARRETT, Judge,

¶2concurring specially.

¶3I am bound to follow the en banc opinion of this court. However, I write to note my dissent in Farrow.

¶4Further, Diaz v. State, 567 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) is apparently contrary to my dissent. I completely disagree with that decision. Whether a trial takes one day or one month, a defendant is entitled to a proper trial. I repeat, one should not underestimate the power of a jury to resolve factual issues. What escapes the legally trained minds of a judge and counsel may be captured by conscientious jurors. A judge by instruction or otherwise should not interfere with the jury deliberation process. If the importance of a jury asking to have testimony reread to them is missed by defense counsel, the appellate courts of this state should not compound such fundamental error.