Court Opinion

ID: 9625590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:45:18.587058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:11.418018
License: Public Domain

LEE, J.,
dissenting.
Concerning defendant’s first assignment of error, the majority has approved the trial court’s instruction in pertinent part that:
"* * * [H]is plea of not guilty and his silence thereafter must not be considered by you as an admission of any fact necessary to be proved and established by the State.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Two of the dictionary definitions of "admission” are:
"The granting of an argument or position not fully proved; a conceding.
"Confession; acknowledgement; as, an admission of guilt.” Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary 26 (unabridged 2d ed 1964).
The defendant’s requested instruction in pertinent part was:
"In this trial, the defendant has chosen not to testify. * * * I, therefore, instruct you that you may not make an inference, favorable or unfavorable, from the defendant’s choice. You must not consider that choice at all in your deliberations on this case.” (Emphasis supplied.)
One of the dictionary definitions of "inference” is:
"Something inferred; a deduction; logical conclusion.” Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary 938 (unabridged 2d ed 1964)
In State of Oregon v. Patton, 208 Or 610, 614, 303 P2d 513 (1956), which was primarily concerned with *701other assignments of error, our Supreme Court stated (albeit dictum) that:
"The defendant also assigns as error the failure of the trial court to grant his motion for a new trial. This assignment of error is based upon the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury to the effect that the defendant’s failure to testify could not be considered as an inference of his guilt. Such an instruction is proper and should always be given when requested, but, since it was not requested at the time of trial, any claimed error was waived. State v. Magers, 36 Or 38, 53, 58 P 892.” (Emphasis supplied.)
We relied on that language for reversal of a rape conviction in State v. Hale, 22 Or App 144, 537 P2d 1173 (1975).1
There is a substantial difference between using the defendant’s silence as an inference of guilt and using the silence as an admission of guilt — a juror could do the former without doing the latter.
Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for a new trial.

 "Defendant was convicted by a jury of rape. ORS 163.375. Defendant did not testify. His principal assignment of error is the trial court’s failure to give defendant’s requested instruction to the effect that failure of defendant to testify did not raise any presumption or inference of guilt. The state does not challenge the form of the requested instruction or the timeliness of the request, but contends only that Oregon law does not require such an instruction be given on request by a defendant. The state argues that the following from State of Oregon v. Patton, 208 Or 610, 303 P2d 513 (1956), is 'mere dictum.’
" '* * * This assignment of error is based upon the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury to the effect that the defendant’s failure to testify could not be considered as an inference of guilt. Such an instruction is proper and should always be given when requested * * *.’ 208 Or at 614.
Suffice it to say that from our vantage point the 'dictum’ appears exceedingly firm. We agree with defendant on this issue.” State v. Hale, 22 Or App 144, 537 P2d 1173 (1975).