State v. Pierson
Decision Date | 15 March 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 1712,1712 |
Citation | 102 Ariz. 90,425 P.2d 115 |
Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. David Eugene PIERSON, Appellant. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Vernon B. Croaff, Public Defender, Grant Laney, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
This is an appeal from defendant's conviction for the crime of attempted robbery, and sentence of a term not less than fifteen nor more than twenty years in the state penitentiary. Defendant contends that certain comments made by the prosecutor during his closing argument amounted to a comment on defendant's failure to take the stand, and thus constituted reversible error.
The particular statements objected to were: (1) 'Now the defendant hasn't said, I didn't do it,' and (2) 'The only man in the world besides the defendant that can testify as to whether he was there or not and whether he put the knife to Mr. Sego's throat is Mr. Sego.'
In order to determine whether these statements were improper it is necessary to set out the context of two portions of prosecuting counsel's argument, which read as follows:
And the second portion of the state's argument stated:
In Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privilege against self-incrimination protected by the Fifth Amendment, and made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids comment by the prosecution on defendant's failure to testify or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt. Thus, defendant's statutory right against such comment under A.R.S. § 13--163, subsec. B has been extended to the level of a constitutional guaranty.
Federal decisions in this area have acknowledged that not every statement directed at the accused's evidence, or lack of it, violates his constitutional rights. These cases say that the Fifth Amendment is violated only if the statements will call the jury's attention to the fact that defendant has not testified in his own behalf. Edwards v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Christensen
...a comment on the failure of the accused to testify. United States v. Bonilla, 615 F.2d 1262, 1264 (9th Cir. 1980); State v. Pierson, 102 Ariz. 90, 92, 425 P.2d 115 (1967); State v. Crank, 13 Ariz.App. 587, 590, 480 P.2d 8 The portion of the prosecution's argument to which appellant takes ex......
-
State v. Wright
...381 U.S. 957, 85 S.Ct. 1797, 14 L.Ed.2d 730 (1965); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964); State v. Pierson, 102 Ariz. 90, 425 P.2d 115, decided March 15, 1967; State v. Smith, 101 Ariz. 407, 420 P.2d 278 (1966).4 See page 340, supra, of the Court's opinion.5 Sta......
-
State v. Lee
...testify. Similar comments by the prosecutor have been held proper. State v. Adair, 106 Ariz. 58, 470 P.2d 671 (1970); State v. Pierson, 102 Ariz. 90, 425 P.2d 115 (1967). C. In his third claim, appellant challenges the constitutionality of the death penalty and Arizona's death penalty statu......
-
State v. Adair
...to the United States Constitution forbids such comment and is applicable to the states. However, as this court stated in State v. Pierson, 102 Ariz. 90, 91, 425 P.2d 115 116, (1967), 'not every statement directed at the accused's evidence, or lack of it, violates his constitutional rights.'......