STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH WARD, RESPONDENT
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 RICHARDSON INQUIRY IS, IN THE OPINION OF THE REVIEWING COURT, HARMLESS ERROR?
Ward v. State, 477 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.
We recently answered the identical question in the affirmative in Smith v. State, 500 So. 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. (Retired), concur. McDONALD, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which SHAW, J., concurs.
McDONALD, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
For the reasons expressed in my dissent in Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1986), I dissent from the majority opinion and call for the modification of the per se rule of Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971). The harmless error standard should be applicable to a trial court’s failure to hold a Richardson hearing.
SHAW, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lucie Raphael v. State, 574 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…witnesses without conducting a Richardson inquiry. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971); Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979); S.G. v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Ward v. State, 477 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), approved, 502 So. 2d 1245 (Fla.1987). We therefore reverse the convictions and sentences and remand for a new trial. Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1986)
- Sanchez v. Herb Friesner, 477 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Ward v. State, 477 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)