Court Opinion

ID: 9767868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:31:17.589605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:33.313690
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion prepared by Judge Jackson, but, since I prepared the opinion in Autry v. State, supra, I conclude that it is necessary that I add these observations of my own.
The situation in the case at bar is more nearly like that in Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219, 88 S.Ct. 2008, 20 L.Ed.2d 1047. From the opinion in Harrison, supra, it is apparent that the Court concluded that the accused there testified *497only in an effort to explain the inadmissible evidence which had been introduced against him. He had made it known prior to the introduction of the inadmissible evidence that he was not going to testify. In this case, it is apparent that appellant had also not intended to testify because when the State rested and after the inadmissible evidence had been introduced appellant’s attorney stated to the court:
“Your Honor, I would like for the record to show that I have conferred with the defendant in connection with his reconsideration of his prior decision to elect to remain silent in this case. He has indicated to me that he now feels that he should go ahead and take the stand. I would like to make it clear from the record that I am not advising him not to do so for the reason that I feel that it is more or less forced as a result of the Court’s ruling in connection with the statement that he made, and I don’t intend to waive these objections.”
It would thus appear that the case at bar is “on all fours” with Harrison v. United States, supra and that Autry v. State, supra, announced a viable rule which applies here.
For the reasons stated, I concur in the opinion overruling the State’s Motion for Rehearing.