Frank Elijah Smith, Cross-Appellant v. Harry K. Singletary, Cross-Appellee

Eleventh Circuit

Frank Elijah Smith, Cross-Appellant v. Harry K. Singletary, Cross-Appellee

970 F.2d 766, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 19136, 1992 WL 197359

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided August 18, 1992·No. 90-3831·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this capital case, the state trial judge prevented defense counsel from presenting and the jury from considering mitigating circumstances not listed in the Florida death penalty statute. Fla.Stat. § 921.141. The district court ruled that this Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. Dug-ger, 758 F.Supp. 688 (N.D.Fla.1990).

Our review indicates that the record well supports the district court’s findings of fact, and the district court faithfully applied the Supreme Court’s and this circuit’s precedents to the facts. This court is unable to say that the Hitchcock error is not harmful beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

*767 Accordingly, the district court is affirmed. *

AFFIRMED.

*

The history of this case is found at Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145, 103 S.Ct. 3129, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Smith v. State, 457 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 1984); Smith v. Dugger, 840 F.2d 787 (11th Cir.1988); Smith v. Dugger, 888 F.2d 94 (11th Cir.1989); Smith v. State, 556 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 1990); and Smith v. Dugger, 493 U.S. 1064, 110 S.Ct. 1104, 107 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1990).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In this capital case, the state trial judge prevented defense counsel from presenting and the jury from considering mitigating circumstances not listed in the Florida death penalty statute. Fla.Stat. § 921.141. The district court ruled that this Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. Dug-ger, 758 F.Supp. 688 (N.D.Fla.1990).

Our review indicates that the record well supports the district court’s findings of fact, and the district court faithfully applied the Supreme Court’s and this circuit’s precedents to the facts. This court is unable to say that the Hitchcock error is not harmful beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

*767 Accordingly, the district court is affirmed. *

AFFIRMED.

*

The history of this case is found at Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145, 103 S.Ct. 3129, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Smith v. State, 457 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 1984); Smith v. Dugger, 840 F.2d 787 (11th Cir.1988); Smith v. Dugger, 888 F.2d 94 (11th Cir.1989); Smith v. State, 556 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 1990); and Smith v. Dugger, 493 U.S. 1064, 110 S.Ct. 1104, 107 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1990).

Frank Elijah Smith, Cross-Appellant v. Harry K. Singletary, Cross-Appellee, 970 F.2d 766, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 19136, 1992 WL 197359 (11th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

970 F.2d 766 (Frank Elijah Smith, Cross-Appellant v. Harry K. Singletary, Cross-Appellee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related