Court Opinion

ID: 9851193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:08:44.133136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:51.085280
License: Public Domain

White, C. Thomas, J.,
dissenting.
In State v. Brooks, 189 Neb. 592, 204 N. W. 2d 86, this court held that an inadvertent statement relating to defendant’s failure to testify will not justify a reversal of a conviction where the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, citing Bruntz v. State, 137 Neb. 565, 290 N. W. 420.
The comment by the prosecutor appears to have been planned and intentional. It is impossible to conceive of an experienced prosecutor being unaware of the doctrine of Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 85 S. Ct. 1229, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106.
I severely doubt that comments of a prosecutor of *81an accused’s failure to testify can ever be harmless error. I dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissent of McCown, J., in State v. Brooks, supra.
McCown, J., joins in this dissent.