VERDECIA v. STATE (2026)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Armando VERDECIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D24-1273

Decided: February 11, 2026

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and MILLER, JJ.

Rier Jordan, P.A., and Jonathan E. Jordan, for appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1977) (“We now hold that it is prejudicial error for a trial judge to respond to a request from the jury without the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and defendant's counsel being present and having the opportunity to participate in the discussion of the action to be taken on the jury's request. This right to participate includes the right to place objections on record as well as the right to make full argument as to the reasons the jury's request should or should not be honored.”) and Thomas v. State, 730 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1998) (“The per se reversible error rule announced in Ivory is prophylactic in nature and must be invoked by contemporaneous objection at trial.”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network