Court Opinion

ID: 9531396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:10:28.736342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:26.295104
License: Public Domain

NIX, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully disagree with my associates as to defendant’s final contention of error. The reluctancy to concur does not arise from any illusion that defendant was prejudiced by the Court’s ruling. The evidence is conclusive as to defendant’s guilt; the minimum sentence was imposed, thus prejudice was not reflected by the record. However, in the opinion of this writer, the matter complained of was in direct conflict with Title 22 O.S.1951 § 701, which reads as follows:
“In the trial of all indictments, infor-mations, complaints and other proceedings against persons charged with the commission of a crime, offense or misdemeanor before any court or committing magistrate in this State, the person charged shall at his own request, but not otherwise, be a competent witness, and his failure to make such request shall not create any presumption against him nor be mentioned on the trial; if commented upon by counsel it shall be ground for a new trial.” (Emphasis ours.)
In the instant case, after the State had rested, the trial judge directed the following question to defense counsel in the presence of the jury:
“Do you wish to place your defendant on the stand?” Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial as a result of these remarks. The motion was overruled. The defendant did not testify.
Though this type remark is not a direct comment upon defendant not testifying in his own behalf, it certainly alerts the jury to ponder as to why he doesn’t. In my opinion the remark was improper and trial judges should refrain from any remarks which might encroach upon the inhibition provided in the statute above mentioned. The statute is clear, unequivocal, direct, and certain. With little effort it could be easily followed. It should be strictly adhered to and no exception made. I hesitate to agree with a decision which permits the gradual chipping away of a statute designed to protect the constitutional rights of an individual. An exception made to circumscribe a statute results in confusion of the law. One exception paves the way for another until eventually the exceptions overshadow the rule. Some thirty years ago, in the case of Everidge v. State, 50 Okl.Cr. 144, 3 P.2d 750, the court made a similar exception to the law announced in Title 22 O.S.1951 § 701. I hesitate to approve another, thereby establishing precedent for the third and continued disembowelment of this statute.