Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 04-04-2020
Case Style:
SEDRICK WRIGHT vs THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Case Number: 18-1633
Judge: Eric Hendon
Court: Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Plaintiff's Attorney: Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Asad Ali, Assistant Attorney General
Defendant's Attorney:
Need help finding a lawyer for representation for appealing from a conviction and sentencing as a Violent Career Criminal in Florida?
Call 918-582-6422. It's Free.
Description:
MoreLaw ReceptionistsVOIP Phone and Virtual Receptionist Services
Call 918-582-6422 Today
Wright was initially stopped by plainclothes police officers when they smelled
marijuana coming from his vehicle as he passed them on the road. The officers
pulled in behind him and blocked his car; Wright got out of the car and ran. When
Wright failed to stop when ordered to, the officers tasered him. The arresting
officers handcuffed him, but did not pat Wright down as incident to arrest, as they
were attempting to remove the taser probes. Later, as other officers were moving
him, an officer noticed a long spring fall out of Wright’s pants. On further
investigation, a gun fell out of Wright’s pants, spilling bullet cartridges.
Wright was initially charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession and
cocaine possession, both charges were later nolle prossed. Wright went to trial on
the charge of possession of a gun by a convicted felon. A nearby witness recorded
parts of the arrest on a cellphone camera. The video was introduced at the trial; the
audio part of the video was not admitted because on the audio portion, an officer can
be overheard saying “You ran because you got cocaine, you don’t want to go to jail,
you’re probably on probation.” The audio was deemed prejudicial and unrelated to
the charge of gun possession. During their deliberations, the jury requested to view
the video once again. The parties agreed that the jury could use the courtroom to
3
view the video, without audio, as part of their deliberations. The parties agreed that
they and trial court judge would not be present during the viewing and deliberations.
The jury subsequently convicted Wright of possession of a weapon by a career
criminal.
At the time of pronouncing the sentence, the trial court asked both the defense
and prosecution what the difference was between finding that Wright was “a danger
to the public,” and a finding that Violent Career Criminal sentencing was “not
necessary for the protection of the public.” Finding no difference, and based on
Wright’s prior record, the trial court determined it could not find that Wright was
not a “danger to the community.” The court sentenced Wright to life in prison as a
Violent Career Criminal pursuant to section 775.084(1)(d), providing that this
sentence was “necessary for the protection of the public.”
Wright argues on appeal that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court
judge was absent from the courtroom during the jury’s viewing of critical video
evidence. The parties agreed that the jury could re-watch the cellphone video, but
without the prejudicial audio portion. Both parties agreed that the jurors could watch
and deliberate in the courtroom without the state or defense present. The trial court
judge decided, without an objection by either party, that he would leave the
courtroom so that the jurors could deliberate freely and privately. The record
indicates that the sound on the video was muted. The defendant now argues that
4
there is no way to determine if the unsupervised jurors un-muted the audio to hear
inadmissible and prejudicial evidence, and thus a new trial is required.
The trial court was not required to be present when the jury viewed the muted
cellphone video during jury deliberations. The jurors were the only persons in the
courtroom during the playback of the video. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.400(a)(3). It is
entirely speculative whether the jury went against the trial court’s explicit
explanation that the video sound was not to be heard by the jury, and there is no
evidence in the record that the jury heard any audio. The video was set up to play on
a loop, and there is suggestion in the record that the remote controls to the video
player were not available to the jury and the transcript indicates that the jury did not
have the ability to un-mute the video.
Evidence introduced during the course of the trial may be viewed by the jury
in the jury room during their deliberations. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.400(a)(3);1 see Thorne
v. State, 174 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that no abuse of discretion
1 Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.400 provides:
(a) Discretionary Materials. The court may permit the jury, upon
retiring for deliberation, to take to the jury room:
(1) a copy of the charges against the defendant;
(2) forms of verdict approved by the court, after being first submitted
to counsel;
(3) all things received in evidence other than depositions. If the thing
received in evidence is a public record or a private document which, in
the opinion of the court, ought not to be taken from the person having
it in custody, a copy shall be taken or sent instead of the original.
5
when trial court allowed jury access to appellant’s videotaped statements in the jury
room during private deliberations). Reviewing or re-reading of testimony provided
during trial, however, must be done in open court in the presence of all parties unless
the defendant makes a knowing and voluntary waiver of the trial court’s presence
during read-back. See e.g., Bryant v. State, 656 So. 2d 426, 428–29 (Fla. 1995);
Strachan v. State, 279 So. 3d 1231, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (holding a jury's
ability to hear recorded testimony must be done in open court in the presence of all
parties as rule 3.410(a) provides); Tovar v. State, 867 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA
2004) (holding a trial judge's absence during the read-back of testimony without a
valid waiver is reversible error); Harbaugh v. State, 711 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA
1998).
Here, the cellphone video was admitted as evidence, not testimony. The audio
was inadmissible and the parties agreed that the jury could view the video evidence
outside the presence of the parties and trial court, using the courtroom for the jury’s
private deliberations. See Thorne, 174 So. 2d at 478. This was not a situation where
the trial judge was required to be present at an aspect of trial where the lawyers or
the parties were in any contact with the jury, or where testimony was being heard,
requiring the defendant’s waiver. Strachan; Ferrer v. Manning, 682 So. 2d 659 (Fla.
3d DCA 1996).
6
Wright is not entitled to resentencing. The record on appeal indicates that the
trial court understood the mandatory sentencing provisions of the VCC statute as
well as its discretion to depart from those mandatory provisions. We find no
reversible error in the trial court’s findings and sentence based on Wright’s record.
Upon thorough review of the record on appeal, we find the remaining issues
to be without merit.
Outcome: Affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: