Cole v. State

Jan 7, 1994
No. 91-2520
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Dauksch

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. DAUKSCH, J., dissents with opinion.



Dissenting Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge,

dissenting.

The comments of the ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‍prosecutor regarding the defendant’s pre-arrest silence coupled with the judge’s permitting the jurors to direct questions to the witnesses coupled with the foreman of the jury asking if the defendant ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‍was going to testify created a violation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial. In my opinion there should be a rule prohibiting jurors from participating as examiners of witnesses ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‍and this case exemplifies the hazards inherent.

That the defendant is guilty is of little doubt but all accused persons are entitled to a fair trial. In addition to, in fact ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‍paramount to, the duty of a prosecütor to seek a conviction is the duty to assure a fair trial. It is justice the state, through the court, seeks, not anything ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‍less. To require a new trial is the only effective remedy for the most serious misconduct.