
    Bruce D. MOYERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. UU-482.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 28, 1981.
    Rehearing Denied July 9, 1981.
    Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn Snur-kowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction entered on jury verdict must be vacated and the case remanded for new trial because the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on maximum and minimum penalties as required by the Supreme Court in Tascano v. State, 393 So.2d 540 (Fla.1980). Defense counsel adequately preserved the point on appeal by requesting the charge and excepting or objecting to the court’s refusal to give it.

Appellant’s second point is that the trial court erred in excluding proffered testimony that was said to support a duress defense. No reason appears why duress may not be a defense to a charge of introducing contraband into a correctional institution. Section 944.47, Florida Statutes (1979). But appellant’s proffer was not sufficiently detailed to permit judgment of whether the excluded testimony tended to show duress in fact, so justifying submitting the issue to the jury. Though the question may be more substantially raised on a new trial, we find no error in the record submitted. See Koontz v. State, 204 So.2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Hall v. State, 136 Fla. 644, 187 So. 392 (1939); Stevens v. State, 397 So.2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, JR., LARRY G. SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

The State has filed a motion for rehearing contending that we failed to consider the harmless error doctrine in reversing the trial court for failure to instruct on maximum and minimum penalties as required by Tascano v. State, 393 So.2d 540 (Fla.1980).

From our interpretation of the Tascano ruling, in conjunction with Justice Alderman’s dissent in that case, the trial court’s error in this respect cannot be considered harmless. However, as requested by appel-lee, we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida the following question is of great public importance:

Does the harmless error doctrine, as enunciated by § 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979), apply to refusal of the trial court to instruct on the maximum and minimum sentences which may be imposed for the offense for which the accused is then on trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a)?

The motion for rehearing is denied.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and LARY G. SMITH, and JOANOS, JJ., concur. 
      
       See generally W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law, Duress § 49, at 374-81 (1972); R. Perkins, Perkins on Criminal Law, Compulsion (Duress) 951-55 (2d ed. 1969); Cawthon v. State, 382 So.2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), pet. for rev. den., 388 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1980).
     