Title: State v. Nomeland
Citation: 581 P.2d 1010
Docket Number: 15556
State: Utah
Issuer: Utah Supreme Court
Date: June 26, 1978

581 P.2d 1010 (1978) STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jack Warren NOMELAND and Donald Farrell, Defendants and Appellants. No. 15556. Supreme Court of Utah. June 26, 1978. Shelden R. Carter, of Utah County Legal Defender Ass'n, Provo, for defendants and appellants. Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., William W. Barrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Noall T. Wootton, Utah County Atty., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent. ELLETT, Chief Justice: The defendants appeal from a conviction of burglary. They make no complaint about the fact that the evidence was sufficient to convince the jury of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What they do complain about is the giving by the court of the following instruction: Mr. Farrell took the stand and testified in his own behalf and so it would seem that he has no basis to complain about the instruction. Mr. Nomeland did not testify and he claims that the instruction cast an aspersion on his constitutional right not to testify, and he relies on the following cases to support his position: (a) State v. Cousins[1] The defendant did not testify; however, the court instructed the jury as follows: In that case the court properly held the instruction to be erroneous, and it is clearly distinguishable from the instant matter. (b) In a later case[2] the Arizona Court of Appeals stated that it was error to instruct as the trial court had done. The instruction is not clear, but it seems to tell the jury that they could decide why the defendant did not testify. (c) In People v. Hampton[3] the court held that it was not error to instruct on the failure to testify unless an objection was made prior to the giving thereof. (d) Two cases in Arkansas support the position of the appellant herein, although there are other cases from that state to the contrary. The two cases relied upon are Russell v. State[4] and Mosby v. State.[5] (e) Appellant also cites Griffin v. California[6] as authority for his contention. However, in that case the trial court told the jury that they could take the defendant's failure to testify into consideration during their deliberations. This of course, would be improper. A number of states have considered the problem, but the thrust of the better-reasoned cases is set out in State v. Jefferson,[7] wherein it was said: The instruction given by a judge to the jury should be governed by the same rule as that which applies to the prosecutor. In the case of State v. Garcia, et al.,[8] the court said: In the case of Harvey v. State[9] it was held that an instruction regarding the failure of a defendant to testify was not erroneous even though the defendant objected to it before it was given. Certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a fact of life that when evidence is given tending to show that a defendant committed a crime, the jurors will naturally expect that one who is innocent of the charge will so say (and all the King's horses and all the King's men cannot change that expectation). While a defendant cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself, he certainly *1012 can testify in his own behalf. It would seem that the instruction complained of in this matter was very helpful to Mr. Nomeland and in no manner was prejudicial to his cause. That instruction did not emphasize the fact that he did not testify. The fact that he did not take the witness stand was a matter which no juror could have failed to notice. It appears to me that one who would set aside a conviction merely because the trial court gave a helpful instruction like the one complained of herein, is criminally-oriented and seeking to find a loophole so as to allow the guilty to escape. The judgment is affirmed. No costs are awarded. CROCKETT, J., concurs. MAUGHAN, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur in result. [1] 420 P.2d 185 (Ariz. App. 1966). [2] State v. Zaragosa, 430 P.2d 426 (Ariz. App. 1967). [3] 231 N.W.2d 654 (Mich. 1975). [4] 398 S.W.2d 213 (1966). [5] 440 S.W.2d 230 (1969). [6] 380 U.S. 609 (1965). [7] 353 A.2d 190 (R.I. 1976). [8] 505 P.2d 862 (Ct.App. N.Mex. 1972). [9] 187 So. 2d 59 (Fla.App. 1966), cert. denied 386 U.S. 923, 87 S. Ct. 894, 17 L. Ed. 2d 795 (1967).