Court Opinion

ID: 9577160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:32:11.123089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:02.200397
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(concurring) :
I concur — with one reservation. I am not prepared to concede the correctness of the decision in State v. Brown.1 The decision in that case did not deal with any *321impaired, rights of the defendant, and I am unable to see why he should have been given a new trial simply because of a privilege which his wife had not to testify against him. She was not on trial, and the statement made by the District Attorney to the jury in no way tended to abridge her privilege not to testify. The determination to call or not to call his wife in that case had been made by the defendant before the District Attorney mentioned a fact which had to be in the minds of all the jurors, to wit: If the defendant was home with his wife, why did he not call her ?
I have never'been able to see how there was any prejudice in that case by reason of the statement made by the prosecuting attorney.

. 14 Utah 2d 324, 383 P.2d 930 (1963).