Frank Elijah Smith, Cross-Appellant v. Harry K. Singletary, Cross-Appellee, 970 F.2d 766 (11th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Frank Elijah Smith, Cross-Appellant v. Harry K. Singletary, Cross-Appellee, 970 F.2d 766 (11th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Smith v. Dixon (ca4, 1993-07-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Smith v. Dixon
4th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Singletary v. Duest, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1940 , 123 L.Ed.2d 647 (1993), vacating 967 F.2d 472 (11th Cir.1992); see also Singletary v. Smith, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1940 , 123 L.Ed.2d 646 (1993), vacating 970 F.2d 766 (11th Cir.1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kermit Smith, Jr. v. Gary Dixon, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Kermit Smith, Jr. v. Gary Dixon, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina
4th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Singletary v. Duest, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1940 , 123 L.Ed.2d 647 (1993), vacating 967 F.2d 472 (11th Cir.1992); see also Singletary v. Smith, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1940 , 123 L.Ed.2d 646 (1993), vacating 970 F.2d 766 (11th Cir.1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frank Elijah SMITH, Petitioner-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
v.
Harry K. SINGLETARY, Respondent-Appellant, Cross-Appellee
90-3831.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Aug 18, 1992.
970 F.2d 766
Carolyn Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., for appellant., Billy H. Ñolas, Ocala, Florida, Julie D. Naylor, Ocala, Fla., for appellee., Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Tjoflat, Hatchett, Edmondson.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
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. Dug-ger, 758 F.Supp. 688 (N.D.Fla.1990).

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).

[*767] Accordingly, the district court is affirmed. *

AFFIRMED.

*

The history of this case is found at Smith 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); and Smith v. Dugger, 493 U.S. 1064, 110 S.Ct. 1104, 107 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1990).