Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided January 27, 2011No. SC09-966Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPolston, J.

I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that it is per se reversible error when a trial judge instructs a jury, prior to deliberations, that it cannot have testimony read back. Although I agree that the instruction is in error, I believe that in some cases the error can be harmless. Therefore, I would quash the Third District’s decision and remand for a harmless error analysis under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.

The majority holds that the read-back error here is per se reversible “because it is impossible to…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  5. State v. DiGuilioSupreme Court of Florida · 1986

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API