State v. Johnson

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Johnson

195 N.W.2d 517, 188 Neb. 151, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 766

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 17, 1972

Docket37879

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 195 N.W.2d 517 (State v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Johnson, 195 N.W.2d 517, 188 Neb. 151, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 766 (Neb. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

White,, C. J.

The sole question presented in this case is the validity of instruction No. 11 given by the district court. The instruction is as follows: “You are to draw no conclusions or inferences from the fact that the defendant has not testified in this case, and you are entitled to draw no conclusions or inferences as to his reason in that regard.” In Murray v. State, 119 Neb. 16, 226 N. W. 793, the defendant alleged error in the following instruction: “ ‘You are instructed that the defendant has not testified in his own behalf in this case, as he had a lawful right to do. Nothing must be taken against him because he has not so testified.’ ” The court approved this instruction. In the recent case of State v. Adams, 181 Neb. 75, 147 N. W. 2d 144, this court approved a similar instruction on the same subject matter.

It is obvious, without further analysis, that there is no merit to the defendant’s contention. The instruction was clearly framed in the light of our holdings in Murray and Adams. The instruction did not imply that the *152 defendant had a duty to testify and the instruction could not have prejudiced the defendant in any way.

The assignment of error is without merit, and the sentence and judgment of the district court are correct and are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

White,, C. J.

The sole question presented in this case is the validity of instruction No. 11 given by the district court. The instruction is as follows: “You are to draw no conclusions or inferences from the fact that the defendant has not testified in this case, and you are entitled to draw no conclusions or inferences as to his reason in that regard.” In Murray v. State, 119 Neb. 16, 226 N. W. 793, the defendant alleged error in the following instruction: “ ‘You are instructed that the defendant has not testified in his own behalf in this case, as he had a lawful right to do. Nothing must be taken against him because he has not so testified.’ ” The court approved this instruction. In the recent case of State v. Adams, 181 Neb. 75, 147 N. W. 2d 144, this court approved a similar instruction on the same subject matter.

It is obvious, without further analysis, that there is no merit to the defendant’s contention. The instruction was clearly framed in the light of our holdings in Murray and Adams. The instruction did not imply that the *152 defendant had a duty to testify and the instruction could not have prejudiced the defendant in any way.

The assignment of error is without merit, and the sentence and judgment of the district court are correct and are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 N.W.2d 517, 188 Neb. 151, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnson-neb-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack