Court Opinion

ID: 9854366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:06:31.57818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:02.582287
License: Public Domain

*769Justice Mitchell
concurring in the result.
I concur in most of the reasoning of the thoughtful opinion of the Chief Justice for the Court and in the result reached. However, although I agree that the trial court erred in refusing to permit the defendant’s counsel to read the applicable clause of the Fifth Amendment to the jury, I do not agree with the Court’s conclusion that the defendant’s counsel was also entitled to “say simply that because of this provision the jury must not consider defendant’s election not to testify adversely to him, or words to this effect.” This would amount to allowing the defendant to comment upon his failure to testify and violate the prohibition set forth in our prior cases. State v. Randolph, 312 N.C. 198, 321 S.E. 2d 864 (1984); State v. Boone, 307 N.C. 198, 297 S.E. 2d 585 (1982); State v. Bovender, 233 N.C. 683, 65 S.E. 2d 323 (1951); State v. Humphrey, 186 N.C. 533, 120 S.E. 85 (1923).
More importantly, although our ordinary rules would permit the prosecutor to respond once the defendant had opened the door by commenting upon his own failure to take the stand and testify, the prosecutor is constitutionally prohibited from doing so in instances such as this. Requiring the State to argue its case with one hand tied behind its back in this fashion would not be necessary, however, if the Court simply adhered to the rule laid down in Randolph, Boone, Bovender and Humphrey prohibiting either the prosecutor or the defendant’s counsel from discussing the defendant’s failure to testify. As the Court’s opinion demonstrates, that prohibition creates no prejudice to the defendant, as the trial court must correctly explain the application of the Fifth Amendment in the context of the defendant’s decision not to testify, if requested to do so by the defendant. Therefore, the rule applied by the Court in this case unnecessarily places the prosecution at a disadvantage in arguing its case.