Case Name: Arthur KRAMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-09-22
Citations: 882 So. 2d 512
Docket Number: No. 4D02-4803
Parties: Arthur KRAMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 882
Pages: 512–512

Head Matter:
Arthur KRAMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D02-4803.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 22, 2004.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laurel R. Whey, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
During jury deliberations, the jury requested a magnifying glass. Through the bailiff, the judge informed the jury that one was not available. However, neither the state nor the defendant were informed of the jury's request. Because this was a communication outside the express notice requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410, we analyze it under the harmless error standard. Williams v. State, 488 So.2d 62, 64 (Fla.1986); Key v. State, 760 So.2d 278, 278-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Using that standard, we affirm.
WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.