Court Opinion

ID: 9560416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:48:46.355911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:54.226798
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
concurring.
I fully concur in the majority opinion and I thoroughly agree with the majority’s refusal to “reconsider our holding in Wilson v. Zant, [249 Ga. 373 (290 SE2d 442) (1982)] that in making its closing argument to the jury, the State is permitted to comment on a defendant’s failure to produce witnesses, who allegedly would have given favorable testimony.” However, at some point in time, I hope that we have an opportunity to reconsider some dicta in Wilson that absolutely precludes a defendant from making a similar comment on the State’s failure to call key witnesses. This Court has followed that dicta in Roper v. State, 251 Ga. 95, 98 (6) (303 SE2d 103) (1983). It appears *729that the dicta in Wilson and the holding in Roper are in conflict with Morgan v. State, 124 Ga. 442 (1) (52 SE 748) (1905). Nevertheless, this case does not allow us to reach this issue and any review and analysis of the rule proscribing defendant’s argument concerning the State’s failure to produce witnesses must await another day.
Decided May 28, 1996.
Christy R. Jindra, for appellant.
Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Todd E. Naugle, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Allison Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Fletcher joins in this opinion.