Hampton v. State
401 So. 2d 918, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20655
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hampton v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 399 So. 2d 441 →
Opinion
We have considered the applicability of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Estelle v. Smith, — U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), to the proceedings below. We conclude that the error if any, in admitting a psychiatrist’s report and a transcript of a competency hearing into evidence at the sentencing phase of defendant’s trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648 (Fla.1981). Accordingly, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hampton v. State, 401 So. 2d 918, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20655 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).
401 So. 2d 918 (Hampton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Estelle v. Smith
451 U.S. 454 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Palmes v. State
397 So. 2d 648 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1981)