Case Title: Crawford v. State

Citation: 491 So. 2d 1142

Docket Number: 66808

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1986-07-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
491 So. 2d 1142 (1986)
Art CRAWFORD, Jr., Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 66808.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 17, 1986.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Joy B. Shearer and Eddie J. Bell, Assts. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Crawford v. State, 473 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In that decision, the district court certified the following question as being of great public importance:
Id. at 701. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We have answered the certified question affirmatively in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand with instructions that the Fourth District Court of Appeal review the record in its entirety and determine whether the impermissible comment was in fact harmless in accordance with the standard expressed in DiGuilio:
Id. at 1139.
It is so ordered.
*1143 McDONALD, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON and SHAW, JJ., concur.
EHRLICH, and BARKETT, JJ., concur specially with opinions.
ADKINS, J., dissents.
EHRLICH, Justice, concurring specially.
I concur because this case is controlled by State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion therein.
BARKETT, Justice, concurring specially.
I concur because this case is controlled by State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). I agree, however, with Justice Adkins' opinion in that case.