State v. R.R.

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. R.R.

502 So. 2d 1244, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 127, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 1577

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 5, 1987

DocketNo. 67,459

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 502 So. 2d 1244 (State v. R.R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. R.R., 502 So. 2d 1244, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 127, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 1577 (Fla. 1987).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The Third District Court of Appeal has certified the following question as one of great public importance:

IS A NEW TRIAL REQUIRED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A RICHARSON INQUIRY IS, IN THE OPINION OF THE REVIEWING COURT, HARMLESS ERROR?

R.R. v. State, 476 So.2d 218, 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.

We recently answered this question in the affirmative in Smith v. State, 500 [1245]*1245So.2d 125 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, EHRLICH and BARKETT, JJ., and ADKINS, J. (Ret.), concur. McDONALD, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which SHAW, J., concurs.

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