Court Opinion

ID: 9682775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:16:39.338834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:41.377163
License: Public Domain

FINCH, Senior Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The statement of the assistant prosecuting attorney during voir dire of the jury clearly shows that he was telling the jury that the defendant is presumed to be innocent and that the burden of proof to establish guilt is on the State. What he said about defendant not having to go forward with any evidence or take the stand was a part of that statement explaining that defendant is presumed to be innocent and must be proved by the State to be guilty.
I cannot agree with the conclusion in the principal opinion that the statement “was of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily be influenced so as to deny appellant a fair trial.” This was not a comment that defendant had failed to take the stand and refute the State’s evidence. This was on voir dire and no evidence had been heard. The remarks also did not have the effect of compelling defendant to testify. The remarks did not challenge the jury to observe whether defendant would go on the stand and testify. The remarks had no such implication or tenor.
I do not mean to suggest that it is advisable or desirable for prosecutors to make statements such as the ones here in ques*905tion. What has occurred shows how foolish it is to risk reversal of a conviction on the basis of any kind of a reference to defendant not being obligated to take the stand. However, having said that, I still would not reverse this conviction. In my view the statements were not harmful or misleading and do not justify reversal of this conviction.