Court Opinion

ID: 9547781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:52:16.680937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:05.779247
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION OP
KOBAYASHI, J.
With the qualification hereinafter mentioned, I agree with today’s holding that the petitioner cannot comment on the defendant’s exercise of his right against self-incrimination and I subscribe to the court’s opinion for said conclusion. However, there is danger that the, court’s opinion “We therefore hold that in a civil proceeding the assertion of defendant’s right against self-incrimination is protected by the state and federal constitutions * * *” is too broad. If implicit in said opinion, a defendant, in a given case, can claim such right against self-incrimination and yet demand the benefits of a status for which he refuses to demonstrate his fitness, then I respectfully dissent to. the broad application of today’s holding. See Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, Harlan, J., dissenting at 525, 526 (1967); Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 (1968).
For reasons stated in my dissent in Almeida v. Correa, 51 Haw. 594, 465 F.2d 564 (1970), I do not join the court’s opinion insofar as it holds that the exhibition of the child to the jury constitutes reversible error.