Court Opinion

ID: 9583017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:34:02.916387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:04.531707
License: Public Domain

*599BISTLINE, Justice,
specially concurring.
It seems to this Justice that the better practice is to insulate the jury from any discussion regarding the defendant’s decision whether to testify. No one can know what effect, if any, the court’s question and comment to Mr. Kenner had on the jury. However, it could be said with absolute assurance that there was no adverse effect if the court had taken the short recess it previously offered to Mr. Kenner and spoken to him outside the presence of the jury. A sidebar would have worked as well, provided that the court and parties spoke softly enough to remain out of the jury’s hearing.
If the court had made that short investment of time, we would now be absolutely sure that Mr. Kenner suffered no prejudice. Further, that time spent could very well have reaped a great savings of time for the two appellate courts which have subsequently reviewed this case.