State v. Rhodes
| Decision Date | 20 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 2615,2615 |
| Citation | 517 P.2d 507,110 Ariz. 237 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jeannie LOU RHODES, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Moise Berger, Maricopa County Atty., by William F. Hyder, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for appellee.
Murray Miller and Philip M. Haggerty, Phoenix, for appellant.
Jeannie Lou Rhodes was convicted of first degree murder in the death by strangulation of her mother. She was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The State's-theory of the case, based totally on circumstantial evidence, is that the defendant planned and carried out the murder of her mother in a cold and calculated manner. Although no motive was ever determined, the State was able to produce enough circumstantial evidence to convince the jury of the defendant's guilt.
Throughout the investigation of the crime and the trial, the defendant insisted she had nothing to do with the murder. She maintained that she and her mother were the victims of an attack by unknown third persons. She did not take the witness stand in her own behalf, but her statements of the events in question were brought before the jury by the testimony of police officers who interviewed her, and by a psychiatrist called on behalf of the defense.
The defendant raises several issues on appeal, but we need only deal with the first. Was it reversible error for the prosecution in a crucial area of argument to directly refer to the fact that the defendant did not take the witness stand and testify to a key fact?
In his rebuttal to the defense's closing argument, the prosecutor, in referring to the testimony of the psychiatrist, Dr. Tuchler, said:
(T.R.Vol. XI, p. 97) (Emphasis added.)
This is a direct comment on the defendant's failure to take the witness stand. Whether this was intentional or accidental is of no moment. The defense motion for a mistrial should not have been denied. In a case where the defendant's rights against self-incrimination are violated it is fundamental error. State v. Smith, 101 Ariz. 407, 420 P.2d 278 (1966).
The prosecution urges that this case should be treated as one involving harmless...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cook
..."no one, no one, no one got up on this stand and testified to you contrary," held to be fundamental error); State v. Rhodes, 110 Ariz. 237, 238, 517 P.2d 507, 508 (1973) (prosecutor's comment, "that [defendant] did not have to explain away, or that [defendant] did not explain away off of th......
-
The State Of Ariz. v. Tamplin
...defendant exercised right to silence and later changed his mind because he needed time to make up story); State v. Rhodes, 110 Ariz. 237, 238, 517 P.2d 507, 508 (1973) (error prejudicial when "evidence hangs in delicate balance with any prejudicial comment likely to tip the scales in favor ......
-
State v. McKenna
...one, no one got up on this stand and testified to you contrary to what was testified to you by the witnesses'"); State v. Rhodes, 110 Ariz. 237, 238, 517 P.2d 507, 508 (1973) (prosecutor's "direct comment on the defendant's failure to take the witness stand" constituted fundamental ¶ 33 Ins......
-
State v. Dansdill
..."where the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the prosecutor’s comment did not contribute to the verdict." State v. Rhodes , 110 Ariz. 237, 238, 517 P.2d 507, 508 (1973) ; see also State v. Trostle , 191 Ariz. 4, 16, 951 P.2d 869, 881 (1997) (improper comment harmless given "overwhelmin......