Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

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

Frank Elijah Smith, Cross-Appellant v. Harry K. Singletary, Cross-Appellee, 970 F.2d 766 (11th Cir. 1992)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1992-08-18
Topic
bankruptcy

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Frank Elijah Smith, Cross-Appellant v. Harry K. Singletary, Cross-Appellee. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
SMITH v. SINGLETARY,970 F.2d 766(11th Cir. 1992)
FRANK ELIJAH SMITH, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT, v. HARRY K.
SINGLETARY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE.
No. 90-3831.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
August 18, 1992.
Carolyn Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., for appellant.

Billy H. Nolas, Ocala, Florida, Julie D. Naylor, Ocala, Fla., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] 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 thisHitchcock 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. Dugger,758 F. Supp. 688(N.D.Fla. 1990).

[2] 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 theHitchcockerror is not harmful beyond a reasonable doubt.Chapman v. California,386 U.S. 18,87 S.Ct. 824,17 L.Ed.2d 705(1967).Page 767

[3] Accordingly, the district court is affirmed.fn*

[4] AFFIRMED.
  1. The history of this case is found atSmith 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); andSmith v. Dugger,493 U.S. 1064,110 S.Ct. 1104,107 L.Ed.2d 1012(1990). ↩