Court Opinion

ID: 9547105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:41:47.377665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:19.758790
License: Public Domain

KAUFMAN, J., Dissenting.
Sadly, the majority misconceives the issues in this case and its misconception has led it to an erroneous conclusion. The issue is not whether the codefendants properly exercised their privileges against self-incrimination, but whether defendant could compel their testimony and whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial because of the prosecutor’s grossly unfair comment on defendant’s failure to call the codefendants as witnesses when the defendant could not compel their testimony and the prosecutor had equal ability to call them as witnesses.
With respect to the true issues the dissenting opinion by Justice Broussard is irrefutably correct and I fully endorse the analysis and reasoning therein set forth.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied June 30, 1988. Broussard, J., and Kaufman, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.