v. State, 726 P.2d 1269 (Wyo.1986), held that while it is generally preferred that a videotape be played in open court, “it is not necessarily error to allow the carefully controlled replay ... in the jury room.” Chambers, 726 P.2d at 1274-75. The court acknowledged that under common law principles when the jury requested to review the testimony the court was required to “discover the exact nature of the jury’s difficulty, isolate the precise testimony which can solve it, and weigh the probative value of the testimony against the danger of undue emphasis.” 726 P.2d at 1275. Under Wyoming law it would never be proper to reread a transcript or replay a videotape of a witness’s entire story. See § 1-11-209, Wyo.Stat. (1977). See also Martin v. State, 747 P.2d 316 (Okla.Crim.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). While Florida does not have a statute that is
holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse warranted reversal where the childs otherwise uncorroborated testimony was the sole basis for conviction and the hearsay augmented the childs testimony with additional detail in certain areas holding that error in admission of videotape was harmless because it was cumulative of childs properly admitted live testimony holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant holding that a videotape of the childs testimony could not be submitted to the jury for its unrestricted repeated viewing during deliberations holding that defendants absence from courtroom during childs testimony to jury instead of presenting videotape of childs testimony to jury with defendant present violated confrontation clause in absence of necessity or defendants consent