Case ID: so2d_573/html/0161-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. GARRETT, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Julio M. PINEIRO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 88-3482.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Jan. 16, 1991.
    Mary Catherine Bonner, Fort Lauder-dale, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Miles E. Ferris, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm on the authority of the en banc opinion of this court in Farrow v. State, 573 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

GARRETT, J., specially concurs with opinion.

GARRETT, Judge,

concurring specially.

I am bound to follow the en banc opinion of this court. However, I write to note my dissent in Farrow.

Further, Diaz v. State, 567 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) is apparently contrary to my dissent. I completely disagree with that decision. Whether a trial takes one day or one month, a defendant is entitled to a proper trial. I repeat, one should not underestimate the power of a jury to resolve factual issues. What escapes the legally trained minds of a judge and counsel may be captured by conscientious jurors. A judge by instruction or otherwise should not interfere with the jury deliberation process. If the importance of a jury asking to have testimony reread to them is missed by defense counsel, the appellate courts of this state should not compound such fundamental error.