State v. Howell

211 N.E.2d 56, 4 Ohio St. 2d 11, 33 Ohio Op. 2d 43, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 408
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided October 13, 1965·No. No. 38901·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In Griffin, the Supreme Court of the United States held that “comment” by the trial court and by the prosecutor “on the [defendant’s] failure to testify violated the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment which we made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth,” even though such comment was authorized by the provisions of the California Constitution.

[12]*12In the instant case, the prosecutor’s brief states:

‘ ‘ The defendant did not testify at the trial. The prosecuting attorney, in closing argument, commented on the defendant’s failure to testify. The court referred to such fact in the charge to the jury.”

We are therefore required to reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the cause to the Common Pleas Court for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Taft, C. J., ZimmermaN, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, SchNeidee and BrowN, JJ., concur.

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

State v. Howell, 211 N.E.2d 56, 4 Ohio St. 2d 11, 33 Ohio Op. 2d 43, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 408 (Ohio 1965).

211 N.E.2d 56 (State v. Howell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hunt
197 S.E.2d 513 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Fields
300 N.E.2d 207 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1973)
Village of Monroeville v. Ward
254 N.E.2d 375 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1969)
State v. O'Connor
217 N.E.2d 685 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1966)