Legal Opinion

Volk v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 8, 2000No. 4D98-4455PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Goodwin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1999
  2. Huhn v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
  3. Rigdon v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
  4. Farrow v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
  5. Roper v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Francois v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API