Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

970 F.2d 766

Docket No. 90-3831.

Smith v. Singletary

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 18, 1992.

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1995

2 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the record well supports the district court's findings of fact.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Smith v. Singletary

Applies FL 921 § 921.141

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Hitchcock v. Dugger · Smith v. Florida

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1992-08-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

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 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. 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 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).

¶3

Accordingly, the district court is affirmed.*

¶4

AFFIRMED.

/970/f2d/766 · .json · Public domain