Opinion · Supreme Court of Florida
Maxwell v. State
657 So. 2d 1157
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Florida
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Date
- 1995-07-20
- Topic
- estate-planning
How later courts describe this case
- approving on basis of Windom district court decision which recognizes that section 921.141 does not intrude upon this Court's rule-making authority
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Maxwell v. State. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 3 opinions
Chester MAXWELL, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 85074.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 20, 1995.Carey Haughwout of Tierney & Haughwout, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Carolyn V. McCann, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Ft. Lauderdale, for respondent.
WELLS, Justice.
We have for review a district court decision presenting the following question certified to be of great public importance:
IS SECTION 921.141(7), FLORIDA STATUTES, ALLOWING VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
State v. Maxwell, 647 So.2d 871, 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
In accordance with our decision in Windom v. State, 656 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1995), we answer the question in the negative and approve the Fourth District's decision upholding the constitutionality of section 921.141(7), Florida Statutes (1993).
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
ANSTEAD, J., recused.