Opinion ID: 2993972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Court’s Response to Jury Question

Text: After the jury retired to deliberate, it submitted the following written question to the trial court: As to count 4, attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, we’re not clear as to what the law states. Can we assume or do we have to cite specific evidence. By assume, we mean because he took Morgan’s wallet, but no clear attempt was made to take Neel’s wallet, et cetera, prior payments of corn, which I’m not sure – - 22 - After reading the question and inquiring of the State and the defense, the trial court decided on the following answer: “It makes more sense just to say you’re not required to cite evidence. You are required only to complete the verdict form. Your responsibility is to determine if the evidence proves each element [beyond a reasonable doubt].” The record demonstrates that defense counsel objected to the trial court’s answer. Generally, the feasibility and scope of any reinstruction of the jury “resides within the discretion of the [trial] judge.” Garcia v. State, 492 So. 2d 360, 366 (Fla. 1986). Discretion is only abused “when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Armstrong v. State, 73 So. 3d 155, 173 (Fla. 2011) (quoting White v. State, 817 So. 2d 799, 806 (Fla. 2002)). Nevertheless, the jury instructions must not be confusing, contradictory, or misleading. Id. The defense argued that the court should have given the “single defendant, multiple counts” instruction again, which reads: A separate crime is charged in each [count of the information] [indictment] [information] and, although they have been tried together, each crime and the evidence applicable to it must be considered separately and a separate verdict returned as to each. A finding of guilty or not guilty as to one crime must not affect your verdict as to the other crime(s) charged. - 23 - Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.12(a). Although including this sentence might have helped the trial judge to address the defense’s interpretation of what the jury was asking, the instruction given by the judge was a correct and complete statement of the law and was not confusing, contradictory or misleading. The judge’s answer and interpretation of the jury’s question was not such that no reasonable person would adopt his view, thus we find no abuse of discretion in answering the jury’s question. Although there was no abuse of discretion here, we caution that the better practice when faced with a confusing or ambiguous question from the jury would be to inquire of the jury as to the meaning of its question. Such a procedure would allow the court to provide the most accurate and complete response possible. See Slinsky v. State, 232 So. 2d 451, 453-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (suggesting that trial court, when faced with a jury request during deliberations, “should have advised counsel of it and re-convened court with defendant in attendance. Depending upon the nature and scope of the jury’s question, the court could then recall or offer to recall the jury into the courtroom for inquiry and the rendition of a response to their request”). This method would seem especially appropriate in cases like this one where the jury question itself was an incomplete sentence, subject to differing interpretations.