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”).
Per Curiam.
May, Damoorgian and Forst, JJ., concur.