Court Opinion

ID: 9596450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:49:52.619637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:28.087768
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent as to Point II of the Opinion. When liberty is in issue and constitutional rights have been infringed, error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *167before it can be ignored. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 (1967). The district attorney’s comment that the defendant was present and could testify as to the age of his children and as to his marital status was a subtle attempt to direct attention to the defendant’s election not to take the witness stand in his own defense and was a clear violation of the mandate in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965). The court’s ruling that the testimony elicited was not the best evidence was, of course, not the proper basis for the exclusion of the evidence which was sought from the witness, and it re-emphasized the defendant’s failure to offer an explanation in his own defense. Montoya v. People, 169 Colo. 428, 457 P.2d 397 (1969). In my opinion, the error which occurred .was of constitutional dimension and required reversal.