Court Opinion

ID: 9585801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:04:00.37599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:15.048049
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment and write to more fully express my views regarding the issue in Division 5 in the majority opinion.
When defense counsel asked the defendant, “Are you guilty of this charge?” the State objected on the ground the question (or a negative answer) was self-serving. The court sustained the objection, not *59on that ground, but on the ground the question addressed the ultimate fact which the jury was to decide.
Decided March 2, 1989
Reconsideration denied March 15, 1989.
Robert H. Alexander III, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Rebecca A. Keel, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Leonora Grant, for appellee.
A defendant in a criminal case must be allowed to testify that he is not guilty of the crime. Neither the rule regarding ultimate facts nor any notion the answer would be self-serving should preclude it.
There may even be a case in which the only testimony a defendant has which bears on the case is that he did not do it, that he is not guilty. Here there was more, and I believe this additional evidence rendered the error harmless.
I am authorized to state that Justice Smith and Justice Bell join in this concurrence.