Opinion ID: 2403292
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jury instructions concerning privilege against self-incrimination

Text: The defendant's final issue on appeal concerns the trial justice's instruction on defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. At the close of the case, in his charge to the jury the trial justice gave the following instruction: The defendant doesn't have to testify in a criminal case because of the constitutional provision that says no person shall be required to incriminate himself. A prosecutor can call to the witness stand practically anybody in the world who knows anything about the case, but he is not permitted to call the defendant. And if a defendant does not testify, he is merely exercising his legal right that is given to you and to me and everybody else. And if he doesn't testify, the jury is not permitted to draw any unfavorable inference against him because of his failure to testify. The defendant objected to this portion of the instruction, claiming that it would lead the jurors to infer that had defendant testified, he would have incriminated himself. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and art. I, sec. 10, of the Rhode Island Constitution guarantee that no adverse inferences are to be drawn from the exercise of a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 614, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 1233, 14 L.Ed.2d 106, 110 (1965). An instruction therefore that states only that a defendant does not have to testify because no person shall be required to incriminate himself or herself may, under other circumstances, be violative of defendant's constitutional rights. However, in this case, the jury instruction was much more complete. It also stated that a defendant never has to prove his innocence, that a jury is not permitted to draw unfavorable inferences against a defendant who does not testify, and that a defendant is presumed to be innocent. Although the single statement that a defendant does not have to testify because he is not required to incriminate himself should be avoided because of possible improper adverse inferences, we believe that the instructions in this case read in their entirety adequately protect the defendant's constitutional rights. For the reasons stated, the defendant's appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, and the papers in the case are remanded to the Superior Court.