Opinion ID: 1882598
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Properly Respond to Jury Request to Have Testimony Read Back

Text: Suggs claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to respond to the jury's request to have the testimony of Steve Casey and Ray Hamilton read back. When it was discovered that the transcript could not be obtained for three hours, the judge gave the jury the option of withdrawing or renewing its request. The jury decided to withdraw its request. After an extended colloquy and a brief adjournment to research the legal issue, defense counsel informed the court that Florida law gives the court ultimate discretion in determining whether to have the testimony read back. The court decided in its discretion not to have the testimony read to the jury in light of the jury's withdrawal of its request. Suggs argues that defense counsel's statement to the court concerning Florida law was an unwarranted concession on this issue. Suggs claims that competent counsel would have insisted that the jury hear the testimony regardless of the jury's preference. The postconviction court found that defense counsel sufficiently expressed to the court their position that the testimony should be read back. The court further found that Suggs failed to establish that any prejudice resulted. Defense counsel testified at the postconviction evidentiary hearing concerning the extensive discussion about this issue at trial. Defense attorney Stewart testified that it was his opinion that the original request to have the testimony read back reflected that the jury was on the defense's side on the issue of the credibility of Casey and Hamilton. Stewart testified that he was unsure if the jury hearing the testimony again would prove beneficial. Defense attorney Kimmel testified that he made a record of the fact that the request was being denied but noted that it is not his practice to make a judge reject requests multiple times before moving on. We find no error in the postconviction court's conclusion that defense counsel was not ineffective in responding to the jury's request for the read-back of the testimony. We also find support for the postconviction court's conclusion that Suggs did not establish prejudice.