Aundra Johnson, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Respondent — Polston, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

Summary

Justice Polston would reject a per se reversal rule for the trial court's erroneous instruction that the jury could not have testimony read back, reasoning that the error may be harmless in some cases. He would quash the district court's decision and remand for a harmless-error analysis placing the burden on the State to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict. Justice Canady, concurring in part and dissenting in part, likewise would require a case-specific harmless-error determination rather than a new trial.