Legal Opinion

Curtis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 13, 1984No. 82-1704PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORFINGER, Judge.

Appellant Curtis appeals a judgment of conviction of the crime of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, contending in his sole issue on appeal that a new trial is required because the trial court responded to a question from the jury without first giving notice to the prosecutor and to defendant’s counsel as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410. We find no error and affirm.

During its deliberations, the foreman of the jury sent two written questions to the trial judge, viz:

Q: Jury wishes to know if there is a record of plaintiff shouting into the phone, “he’s…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rushen v. SpainSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Rose v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1982
  3. Ivory v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1977
  4. Hitchcock v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1982
  5. State v. PrietoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Curtis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1985
  2. Morgan v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
  3. Williams v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
  4. Gould v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API