State v. Smith
491 So. 2d 1140, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 358, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2353
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Smith. Read the opinion of the Court — 547 So. 2d 613 →
Opinion
The following question has been certified as being of great public importance:
May the harmless error rule be applied in a case involving an impermissible comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent?
Smith v. State, 467 So.2d 501, 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. In State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986), we answered virtually the identical question in the affirmative. We therefore quash the instant decision and remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of DiGuilio.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Smith, 491 So. 2d 1140, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 358, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2353 (Fla. 1986).
491 So. 2d 1140 (State v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. DiGuilio
491 So. 2d 1129 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Smith v. State
467 So. 2d 501 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)