U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1992

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided August 18, 1992 · Tjoflat, Hatchett, Edmondson

970 F.2d 766; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 19136; 1992 WL 197359 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Opinion

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).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.