Hart v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00927-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00927-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-12-2007 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of dwelling - Comment on defendant’s failure to take the stand Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-26-2006 Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY OF A DWELLING HOUSE AND SENTENCED TO SERVE TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: David Byrd Clark Case Number: 14,479 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | EUGENE HART A/K/A EARL HART |
DAN W. DUGGAN |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JACOB RAY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Burglary of dwelling - Comment on defendant’s failure to take the stand |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eugene Hart was convicted of the burglary of a dwelling and sentenced to twenty-five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hart argues that the district attorney, during closing argument, infringed upon Hart’s Fifth Amendment constitutional right not to be compelled to testify against himself by allegedly commenting on Hart’s failure to take the stand at trial. It is a violation of an elementary and long established principle of law for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s failure to take the stand at trial. A prosecutor may violate a defendant’s right not to be compelled to testify against himself not only by making a direct statement but also by a comment that a jury may reasonably construe to be a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify. When reviewing the statement in the context of the argument that preceded and followed it, it is clear the prosecutor was not referring to the defendant’s failure to testify but was arguing for the credibility of his own witness. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
