Volk v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
The 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).
AFFIRMED.
DELL, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Goodwin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1999
- Huhn v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
- Rigdon v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
- Farrow v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
- Roper v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Francois v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011