Court Opinion

ID: 9684641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:06:27.203582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:58.341217
License: Public Domain

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, dissenting. I cannot agree that this case should be reversed because of the prosecuting attorney’s comment to the jury, which the majority state called attention to the fact that appellant Adams did not testify. Before discussing the remark made by the prosecutor, there is, off-hand, a reason why this case should not be reversed, whatever the prosecutor’s remark. I refer to the fact that the defendant’s counsel requested the court to tell the jury that the defendant was not required to testify, and the court complied with the request, explaining that a defendant may testify if he likes, but is not required to do so, and that fact is not to be taken into consideration in arriving at a verdict in the case. In Russell v. State, 240 Ark. 97, 398 S.W. 2d 213, we thoroughly discussed when it is proper for a court to give this instruction, and when it is improper. We said: “None of the three accused took the witness stand. The court, despite the objections of defense counsel, told the jury that the accused had the right to testify or not to testify and that their failure to do so was not evidence of guilt and was not to be considered by the jury. This is a familiar instruction. When the accused asks that such a charge be given it is reversible error for the court to deny the request. Cox v. State, 173 Ark. 1115, 295 S.W. 29 (1927). When, however, the accused objects to such an instruction, a different situation is presented. Accordingly, it would have been reversible error for the court to refuse the instruction after defendant’s counsel requested it! In such event, I can’t see how the State can win — the case is reversed by giving the instruction — and it would be reversed if it had not been given. Not only that, but it is certainly most unusual to reverse a judgment because of error committed at the request of a defendant. As to the actual remark made, I repeat the statement of the prosecutor because I intend to compare it with numerous other statements where the same contention (that such statements called attention to the jury that the defendant did not testify) was made, and this court found no error. Here, the prosecuting attorney said: “. . . To convict him, (the defendant) you don’t have to disbelieve any part of their case, because what did the defense, how many witnesses did the defense put on for your consideration?” In the first place, a defendant frequently offers several witnesses, whether he testifies himself or not, and the statement made, to me, simply has reference to a lack of witnesses offered (no witnesses were offered by the defense). To compare a few other cases where the same identical contention was made, let us first look at Harris v. State, 260 Ark. 646, 543 S.W. 2d 459. There, the prosecuting attorney, in argument, stated: “Possession? You heard the three agents get on this stand and say that the hundred pounds of substance was taken from these two defendants out there on Cato Springs Road on April 29th, 1974. There has been absolutely no testimony to contradict that. I don’t think that is even an issue at this point. They possessed it; a hundred pounds — Approximately one hundred pounds — ” It was argued that the italicized statement constituted prejudicial comment upon appellant’s failure to testify, but we found no merit in this contention. In Sims v. State, 258 Ark. 940, 530 S.W. 2d 182: “Appellant objected to the prosecuting attorney’s reference to testimony as uncontradicted and undenied, as a comment on defendant’s failure to testify, and moved for a mistrial. Overruling the objection and refusing to declare a mistrial was not error.” In Shaddox v. State, 244 Ark. 747, 427 S.W. 2d 198, objection and motion for a mistrial were based on the contention that certain remarks amounted to a comment on the appellant’s failure to take the witness stand. The statement objected to was as follows: “ * * * Now, how could even, how could these fine attorneys for the defense reasonably argue to you that he did not intend to inflict serious harm upon Younes, he said he did. He said ‘Johnny, Blankety-blank I’ll kill you.’ And nobody has attempted to explain that away^ in fact, I guess they couldn’t.” We held that no error had been committed. In Davis v. State, 96 Ark. 7, 130 S.W. 547, a prosecutor’s remarks that the defendant had told two witnesses how he had administered medicine to produce an abortion, followed by the statement that, “* * * it is undisputed and undenied and he cannot deny it,” were expressions of opinion as to the weight of the testimony of the witness which could not be construed as a reference to the fact that the defendant had not testified. In Culbreath v. State, 96 Ark. 177, 131 S.W. 676, the opinion reflects: “Another ground urged for reversal is as to alleged improper remarks of an attorney representing the State in his closing argument. The following are the objectionable remarks: ‘Where was the defendant that day? He has never seen fit to say. He has not shown by any one where he was between the hours of 10 o’clock in the morning and 1:30 in the afternoon.’ Taking the whole statement together, we do not think it can fairly be construed as a comment or criticism on defendant’s failure to testify in his own behalf or as calling attention to that fact. It was merely an expression of the opinion of counsel that the defendant had not adduced evidence accounting for his whereabouts during the hours named. We conclude that there was no prejudicial error in the remarks.” A statement by a prosecuting attorney asserting that a conversation by a defendant was unexplained and undenied by anyone and calling on “them” to explain it, if untrue, was held to be an expression of opinion that the testimony, not being rebutted, should be accepted as true and not a comment on the failure of the defendant to testify. Davidson v. State, 108 Ark. 191, 158 S.W. 1103. When a prosecuting attorney referred to a coat of an alleged accomplice which had been found in a defendant’s car and asked, “What explanation have they made of that?”, this court said that this argument was not a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify. Cascio v. State, 213 Ark. 418, 210 S.W. 2d 897, cert. den. 335 U.S. 845. In Edens v. State, 235 Ark. 996, 363 S.W. 2d 923, also a case where the defendant offered no proof, a statement by a prosecuting attorney in closing argument that the State’s evidence was undenied was said by this court to be a contention that the testimony should be believed because it was uncontradicted. In Hammond and Evans v. State, 244 Ark. 1113, 428 S.W. 2d 639, it was contended that certain remarks of the prosecuting attorney before the jury amounted to a comment upon the failure of appellants to testify. During his closing argument, the prosecutor made the following statements, and those that were contended to be-prejudicial are italicized: “The proof’s in here that the McDougal boy admitted it, and the proof’s in here that the other boy, or Jerry Hammond, or Jerry ‘Fish’ Hammond, admitted it. And it’s uncontradicted and it’s undisputed. “Now then, what does that bring us down to just purely and simply? We just have no other — there’s no alternative. It’s inconceivable to me of anything other than guilty on burglary, without question. There is even an inference when you’ve found stolen property and the possession of it is not explained. That’s not enough to put you in the penitentiary itself; but, that alone is inference of your guilt. You say, ‘Well, it might happen to me. They might catch me with it.’ You’re going to answer pretty quick where you got it, where you bought it, and what you did with it. We have no such explanation. * * * “Is he guilty? or is he innocent? If he’s guilty, then talk about the sentence. If there’s extenuating circumstance, then, sure, take into consideration the minimum. That’s why — that’s what minimum sentences are for, if there’s extenuating circumstances. I know of none here. None has been called to your attention here. None has been told you here. ” In a rather comprehensive discussion, the court held that none of the remarks were a comment upon the defendants’ failure to testify and stated: “Actually, much stronger statements have been held to not constitute a comment upon the failure to testify.” In Moore, Frazier, Davidson v. State, 244 Ark. 1197, 429 S.W. 2d 122, the prosecuting attorney, in the course of his closing argument, made the following statements: “The case was ‘uncontradicted and undenied’; l will leave that because the record is bare; There is nothing else in here except the testimony and proof of the sheriff; There has been no proof as to who (certain equipment) belonged to, the testimony was that nobody would claim it, nobody has acquired it, nobody has come here today to acquire it; and if I was picked up with (the equipment introduced into evidence), there would .be some explanation of what it was doing in my car and what I was doing with it.” This court stated: “We feel that the expressions are all attributable to the weight to be given to the evidence, and that in no instance was the jury’s attention called to the fact that appellants failed to testify.”1  In Ferrell v. State, 177 Ark. 742, 9 S.W. 2d 15, where the defendant failed to testify, the prosecutor stated: “Now, gentlemen, we just want to be fair. If I knew Frank Ferrell was innocent in this crime, but the circumstances, gentlemen of the jury, that we have introduced here before you have not been denied.” We found no error. In Langston v. State, 184 Ark. 687, 43 S.W. 2d 231, the prosecuting attorney remarked: “The fact that Burley Tyler bought the liquor from the defendant has not been denied, and his testimony stands unimpeached.” No error! In Markham v. State, 149 Ark. 507, 233 S.W. 676, the prosecuting attorney used the following language: “ ‘We find the five leaving the mill and going in the direction of the still. None of them denied that they went to the still but Perry Franklin.' [My emphasis.] The appellants objected to the argument of the prosecuting attorney and asked that the jury be instructed not to consider it for the reason that ‘it was a direct reference to the failure of the defendants to testify. ’ The court overruled the objection and appellants duly excepted. The jury returned a verdict of guilty against the appellants and fixed their punishment at one year in the penitentiary. * * * The remarks of the prosecuting attorney should not be construed as a comment upon the failure of the appellants to testify, and hence these remarks do not contravene the provisions of our statute to the effect that the failure of an accused to testify shall not create any presumption against him.” The case of Miller v. State, 239 Ark. 836, 394 S.W. 2d 601, cited by the majority, is clearly distinguishable, for there, over objections, the court instructed the jury that, it was the privilege of the defendants to testify in their own behalf or to decline to testify, and the prosecuting attorney, in arguing the case, specifically called this instruction to the attention of the jury, and even repeated it. Obviously, attention was directly called to the fact that defendants had not taken the stand in their own behalf. It is apparent from the cases cited that much stronger remarks have been made than the simple little remark made in the instant case, but this court found no error. It is inconceivable to me that this case is being reversed, and to me, this reversal has the effect of overruling the cases mentioned, and numerous others that I do not have time to cite. I consider that the majority opinion will very much handicap a prosecutor in his argument to the jüry, and in fact, places him in a position where he really cannot know what can be validly said. I would affirm. Fogleman, J., joins in this dissent.  In view of the fact that the majority opinion is predicated on the self-incrimination clause of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to states by the 14th Amendment, it is interesting to note that certiorari was denied by the court in this case. See 393 U.S. 1063.