Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Kenneth WARD, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-03-05
Citations: 502 So. 2d 1245
Docket Number: No. 67845
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Kenneth WARD, Respondent.
Judges: OVERTON, EHRLICH and BARKETT, JJ., and ADKINS, J. (Retired), concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 502
Pages: 1245–1245

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Kenneth WARD, Respondent.
No. 67845.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 5, 1987.
Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Mark J. Berkowitz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.
N. Joseph Durant of Gelber, Glass & Durant, P.A., Miami, for respondent.

Opinion:
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.