finding harmful error where during closing argument, the State focused on improper impeachment evidence and appellant’s testimony that he lived in jail, telling the jury this was relevant to his credibility
How later courts described this case
- finding harmful error where during closing argument, the State focused on improper impeachment evidence and appellant’s testimony that he lived in jail, telling the jury this was relevant to his credibility
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
POLEN, J.,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority’s reversal, but write separately to address another issue raised. When the jury retired to deliberate, the trial court, over protests from both sides 2 , allowed the jury to have the written instructions that had portions crossed out. These instructions were not made part of the record, so we cannot determine if the parts crossed out were still readable, and thus may have caused juror confusion. See Santana v. State, 548 So.2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Because the ease is to be retried, the court should allow into the jury room only instructions as given, without cross-outs of inapplicable portions of the standard (or special) instructions.
. The stale now argues this issue was not preserved. Although it is not the basis for our reversal, I would hold it was sufficiently preserved.