Opinion
No. 67,459.
March 5, 1987.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance; Third District — Case No. 84-62.
Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.
James H. Greason, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Miami, for respondent.
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 RICHARSON INQUIRY IS, IN THE OPINION OF THE REVIEWING COURT, HARMLESS ERROR?R.R. v. State, 476 So.2d 218, 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.
We recently answered this 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. (Ret.), concur.
McDONALD, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which SHAW, J., concurs.
For the reasons expressed in my dissent in Smith v. State, 500 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1986), I dissent from the majority opinion and call for the modification of the per se rule of Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971). The harmless error standard should be applicable to a trial court's failure to hold a Richardson hearing.
SHAW, J., concurs.