Court Opinion

ID: 9764536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:26:22.710722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:57.869168
License: Public Domain

BELSON, Associate Judge,
concurring in the result.
In Boyd v. United States, 586 A.2d 670 (D.C.1991), a divided division of this court advised, but did not hold, that trial judges should engage sua sponte in a colloquy with a defendant in a criminal trial when it *1036is indicated to the judge that the defendant intends to forego the right to testify. The purpose of the colloquy would be to determine whether the defendant is making a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to testify.
I think the question of whether such advice must be given by the trial court is of sufficient importance to be the subject of a holding or other similarly definitive ruling of this court. Because the division that considered the matter in Boyd was divided, the matter is probably suitable for en banc consideration in an appropriate case. As resolution of the matter is not significant to the outcome of this appeal, this case does not appear to be an appropriate vehicle for en banc consideration.