Smith v. State (510 So. 2d 310, 1986)

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.