Court Opinion

ID: 9914809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 15:02:41.098081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:41.658588
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                                FOURTH DISTRICT

                            NAKIA SIMMONS,
                               Appellant,

                                      v.

                          STATE OF FLORIDA,
                               Appellee.

                             No. 4D2022-1729

                             [January 3, 2024]

   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Timothy L. Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No.
19007785CF10A.

  Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

  Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay A. Warner,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

    Affirmed. See Francis v. State, 808 So. 2d 110, 130 (Fla. 2001) (“It is
well established that trial judges have broad discretion in deciding whether
to read back testimony.”); Simmons v. State, 334 So. 2d 265, 266–67 (Fla.
3d DCA 1976) (noting that a read-back taking seven hours was
impractical); Castellon-Lopez v. State, 230 So. 3d 518, 519–20 (Fla. 3d DCA
2017) (concluding the trial court properly (1) explained to the jury it could
get a read-back and (2) instructed the jury to “specify which portions of
the testimony it wishe[d] to review,” and explaining that “[r]ather than
misleading the jury into believing that read-backs are prohibited, the trial
court specifically informed the jury that a read-back is permitted, and
asked the jury to specify what portions of the testimony it would like to
hear”).

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

                            *          *          *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.