State v. Carter
| Decision Date | 30 December 1980 |
| Citation | 438 A.2d 778,182 Conn. 580 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. George C. CARTER. |
Richard Emanuel, Asst. Public Defender, with whom, on the brief, was Jerrold H. Barnett, Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
William F. Gallagher, Spec. Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Arnold Markle, State's Atty., and John J. Kelly, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before BOGDANSKI, PETERS, HEALEY, ARMENTANO and WRIGHT, JJ.
The dispositive issue on this appeal is whether the trial court's failure to give the "no unfavorable inferences" instruction mandated by General Statutes § 54-84 (b) is reversible error when the defendant's trial counsel failed to object to its omission from the charge delivered by the trial court. This case is governed by our recent ruling in State v. Burke, --- Conn. ---, ---, --- A.2d ---- (42 Conn. L. J., No. 20, pp. 1, 3) (1980).
The defendant, George C. Carter, was indicted, tried and convicted of felony murder in violation of Public Acts 1974, No. 74-186, § 11, now General Statutes § 53a-54c. The defendant did not testify on his own behalf. The presentation of evidence in his trial was concluded on September 30, 1977, and the court charged the jury the following Tuesday, October 4, 1977. The instructions to the jury did not include the "no unfavorable inferences" charge mandated by General Statutes § 54-84(b), 1 although that statute had taken effect on October 1, 1977. No requests concerning instructions pursuant to the statute were made to the trial court, and no exceptions were taken in that regard.
This case is indistinguishable from State v. Burke, supra. For the reasons there detailed, we will exercise our discretion to review the defendant's claim despite his failure to make a timely request or objection concerning the charge in the trial court. "Where the legislature has chosen specific means to effectuate a fundamental right, failure to follow the mandatory provisions of the statute is plain error, reviewable by this court." State v. Burke, supra, --- Conn. at ---, --- A.2d ----. The provisions of § 54-84(b) require the court, unless the defendant requests otherwise, to instruct the jury that no unfavorable inferences may be drawn from his failure to testify. State v. Burke, supra, --- Conn. at ---, --- A.2d ----. Failure to follow the mandate of the statute is reversible error.
There is error, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ruocco
...any kind of harmless error analysis was applicable in this context. State v. Burke, supra, 332-34; see also State v. Carter, 182 Conn. 580, 580-81, 438 A.2d 778 (1980) (per curiam) (companion case following Burke). Subsequently, in Sinclair, this court determined that the complete failure t......
-
State v. Ruocco
...460 U.S. 1084, 103 S.Ct. 1775, 76 L.Ed.2d 347 (1983) ; State v. Boulware, 183 Conn. 444, 446, 441 A.2d 1 (1981) ; State v. Carter, 182 Conn. 580, 581, 438 A.2d 778 (1980) ; State v. Burke, 182 Conn. 330, 331, 438 A.2d 93 (1980).... [W]e explained that noncompliance with § 54–84(b) is [paten......
-
State v. Cooper
...denied, 460 U.S. 1084, 103 S.Ct. 1775, 76 L.Ed.2d 347 (1983); State v. Boulware, 183 Conn. 444, 441 A.2d 1 (1981); State v. Carter, 182 Conn. 580, 438 A.2d 778 (1980); State v. Burke, 182 Conn. 330, 438 A.2d 93 (1980); State v. Sinclair, 20 Conn.App. 586, 569 A.2d 551 (1990); State v. Thurm......
-
State v. Thurman
...supra; State v. Tatem, 194 Conn. 594, 483 A.2d 1087 (1984); State v. Carrione, supra; State v. Boulware, supra; State v. Carter, 182 Conn. 580, 438 A.2d 778 (1980); State v. Burke, 182 Conn. 330, 438 A.2d 93 (1980). In each of these cases, the court has uniformly and consistently decided to......