Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

754 So. 2d 82

Volk v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2000-03-08

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 2011

2 state decisions

Relies on 751 So. 2d 537 - Goodwin v. State · 511 So. 2d 583 - Huhn v. State · State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Garcia

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-03-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The 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 *831993); Farrow v. State, 573 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

¶2AFFIRMED.

DELL, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
/754/so2d/82 · .json · Public domain