Court Opinion

ID: 9637196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:00:14.8637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:54.372435
License: Public Domain

ROGERS, Chief Judge,
concurring:
I write separately simply to clarify that the holding of the court is only that in the absence of a claim by appellant at any time, including appeal, that he was denied the right to testify at his trial, this court has no occasion to hold that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to conduct an inquiry into whether or not appellant had waived his right to testify. See Banks v. Ferrell, 411 A.2d 54, 55-56 & n. 7, 57 (D.C.1979); Smith v. Smith, 310 A.2d 229, 231 (D.C.1973). Thus, it remains for the court to decide, when a claim is presented that a defendant’s right to testify has been unlawfully denied, whether the trial court has a sua sponte duty to conduct an inquiry in order to assure the protection of the fundamental constitutional right of the defendant to testify at his or her trial.1 Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 49-52, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 2707-10, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); Boyd, supra note 1, 586 A.2d at 672-74 (and cases cited). It bears repeating, however, that the issue in this appeal, and in several other appeals before the court,2 could have been avoided had such an inquiry been made. See Boyd, supra, 586 A.2d at 676 (“We take this occasion ... to advise the trial court and the Bar ... [that] it behooves the trial court to make such an on-the-record inquiry in order to avoid issues on appeal and collateral attacks”) (footnote and citations omitted).

. In neither Kelly v. United States, 590 A.2d 1031 (D.C.1991), nor Boyd v. United States, 586 A.2d 670 (D.C.1991), did the court hold that the trial court does not have a sua sponte duty to en-quire. See Kelly, supra, 590 A.2d at 1033; Boyd, supra, 586 A.2d at 677.

. See, e.g., Kelly, supra note 1, 590 A.2d 1031; Hunter v. United States, 588 A.2d 680 (D.C.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 256, 116 L.Ed.2d 210 (1991).