Opinion ID: 2313191
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Inconclusive Advisory Opinion on the Facts Underlying an Earlier Conviction.

Text: Second, Dailey argues that the trial judge unconstitutionally chilled the defendant's exercise of his right to testify by announcing an erroneous advisory opinion about the admissibility of the facts underlying Dailey's earlier conviction. The State argues that for Dailey [t]o raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify. [8] In Walker v. State, we noted that where a defendant does not testify: [t]his Court has no testimony to evaluate and `no way of knowing whether the trial court would have modified its ruling in light of the evidence presented.' In fact, the State might have decided not to use the prior felony convictions to impeach [the defendant] at trial. [9] We agree that Dailey is not entitled to any relief because he chose not to testify. If Dailey had testified, after his direct testimony, the trial judge would have then ultimately determined, perhaps contrary to the earlier erroneous advisory opinion, whether the State could introduce the facts underlying as well as the fact of Dailey's earlier conviction based upon a full presentation to the trial judge from counsel about the probative value and prejudicial effect of introducing that evidence. The trial judge's ill advised response to defense counsel's entreaty opened the door for Dailey's argument. Because, however, Dailey decided not to testify, he effectively removed the issue from contention and cannot now claim the trial judge's preliminary ruling prejudiced him.