Court Opinion

ID: 9579750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:58:11.877609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:44.580356
License: Public Domain

Peentis, J.,
dissenting:
My views as to the proper construction of Code section 4778 differ so radically from those expressed by my brethren that I feel impelled to record my dissent therefrom. To me the words of the statute permitting one accused of crime to testify in his own behalf upon condition that he waive his privilege to stand mute are too clear to need any interpretation, and the sound progressive public policy of the act is too manifest to justify any qualification of its language. The impelling motive and sufficient reason for the statute are the improvement of the administration of the erimiiial law, so that the vindication of the innocent may be easier and the conviction of the guilty more certain. Being a remedial statute then, I think that it should not receive a construction so strict as to limit its operation, for this tends to defeat instead of to effect its purpose.