Case Name: Louis Donald CINCI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-06-01
Citations: 642 So. 2d 572
Docket Number: No. 93-1619
Parties: Louis Donald CINCI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 642
Pages: 572–574

Head Matter:
Louis Donald CINCI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 93-1619.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 1, 1994.
Order Denying Rehearing Aug. 31, 1994.
Kenneth G. Spillias of Law Office of Kenneth G. Spillias, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm Louis Donald Cinci's conviction and sentence for aggravated bat tery with a firearm. We agree with Judge Glickstein's dissent that it was error for the trial court to take judicial notice of the date on which defense counsel filed his witness list. As the dissent very ably points out, the prosecutor had sufficient competent evidence with which to refute the wife's version of the events without the use of the witness list. However, we hold that other factors at trial cured any prejudice that may have otherwise resulted from this error. First, the trial court permitted defense counsel to be heard and, at his request, the court recessed for lunch and permitted defense counsel to speak with the previous defense attorney who filed the witness list. Second, defense counsel called the attorney who filed the witness list as a witness during trial. That attorney explained to the jury the reason Mrs. Cinci's name was not earlier provided to the state as a witness. Thus, we hold that any prejudice that may have resulted from the trial court's improper taking of judicial notice was dissipated by that testimony. The jury considered and weighed the testimonies of all of the witnesses and returned a verdict of guilty. We can state beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the guilty verdict. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
We also find no merit in appellant's second point on appeal. While we agree that the trial court incorrectly relied upon State v. Inciarrano, 473 So.2d 1272 (Fla.1985), we nevertheless hold that the trial court properly admitted into evidence the tape recording of appellant's conversation with Shelly Belle-rud. The taped conversation occurred in the apartment building courtyard. Conversations occurring inside an enclosed area or in a secluded area are more likely to be protected under section 934.02(2). See Ruiz v. State, 416 So.2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Chandler v. State, 366 So.2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 1157 (Fla.1979), aff'd, 449 U.S. 560, 101 S.Ct. 802, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981). Moreover, the tape recording contents are also admissible because appellant's statements to Shelly Bellerud made during that conversation in the courtyard is evidence that appellant was attempting to evade prosecution. Thus, the contents are relevant to prove consciousness of guilt. See Sired v. State, 399 So.2d 964 (Fla.1981).
Accordingly, we affirm.
GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
GLlCKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.
GUNTHER, J., did not participate in oral argument but has reviewed the presentation made at that proceeding.
. The tape recording in Inciarrano, which the murder victim secretly made of his own murder, was made inside the victim's home. This fact raises considerations regarding the defendant's expectation of privacy which are not present in the instant case.