67 N.Y.2d 990 (1986)

A trial court’s unrequested instruction to the jury regarding a defendant’s right not to testify is subject to harmless error analysis, unlike the denial of a requested “no inference” charge, which is per se reversible error.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court’s unrequested remarks during voir dire about the defendant’s possible failure to testify warranted reversal. The Court held that while CPL 300.10(2) dictates that a “no inference” charge should only be given at the defendant’s request, giving the charge without a request is subject to harmless error analysis, unlike denying such a request. Because the court found the remarks harmless in this specific case, it affirmed the lower court’s decision. The key distinction lies in whether the defendant requested the instruction.

Facts

During voir dire, the trial court made remarks regarding the defendant’s possible failure to testify. Defense counsel had questioned prospective jurors about their potential reactions if the defendant chose not to testify. The defendant did not request a “no inference” charge.

Procedural History

The Appellate Division order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a trial court’s unrequested remarks during voir dire about the defendant’s possible failure to testify constitute reversible error.

Holding

No, because unlike a denial of a request for a