Case ID: so2d_510/html/0310-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James L. SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 84-2006.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Dec. 24, 1986.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Michael W. Baker and Joan Fowler Rossin, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   OPINION ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. We believe the state has demonstrated that the error in receiving testimony concerning appellant’s constitutional right to remain silent was harmless under the test set out in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.