State v. Carter

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Carter

438 A.2d 778, 182 Conn. 580, 1980 Conn. LEXIS 1023

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 30, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 438 A.2d 778 (State v. Carter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Carter, 438 A.2d 778, 182 Conn. 580, 1980 Conn. LEXIS 1023 (Colo. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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, 182 Conn. 330, 333-34, 438 A.2d 93 (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-54e. The defendant did not testify on his own behalf. The presentation of evidence in his trial was concluded on September 30, 1977, and [581]*581the 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, 332. 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, 333. Failure to follow the mandate of the statute is reversible error.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and a new trial is ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

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, 182 Conn. 330, 333-34, 438 A.2d 93 (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-54e. The defendant did not testify on his own behalf. The presentation of evidence in his trial was concluded on September 30, 1977, and [581]*581the 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, 332. 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, 333. Failure to follow the mandate of the statute is reversible error.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and a new trial is ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

438 A.2d 778, 182 Conn. 580, 1980 Conn. LEXIS 1023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carter-conn-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack