People v. Wright, 38 N.Y.2d 114 (1975)
When a defendant requests a jury instruction that no unfavorable inference can be drawn from the defendant’s failure to testify, the trial court’s failure to provide that instruction is reversible error, regardless of the strength of the evidence against the defendant.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a trial court’s failure to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendant, that no unfavorable inference could be drawn from the defendant’s decision not to testify was reversible error. The defendant was convicted of robbery and chose not to testify. His counsel requested a specific jury instruction that the defendant’s silence could not be used against him. The trial court did not provide the requested instruction. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the statutory requirement to provide the instruction upon request is mandatory and not subject to harmless error analysis. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the defendant’s right against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence.
Facts
The defendant was charged with robbing the same individual on four separate occasions.
The defendant chose not to testify at trial.
Defense counsel requested the trial judge to instruct the jury that the defendant’s failure to testify could not be used against him in any way.
The trial court failed to provide the requested instruction.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of robbery at trial.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court’s failure to give the requested instruction was harmless error due to the clear and convincing evidence of the defendant’s guilt.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendant, that no unfavorable inference could be drawn from the defendant’s decision not to testify constitutes reversible error.
Holding
Yes, because the statutory direction to charge this specific language, where a proper request is made, is mandatory and, except in circumstances not now contemplable, immune to harmless error analysis.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that CPL 300.10 (subd 2) explicitly requires the trial court to instruct the jury, upon the defendant’s request, that no unfavorable inference may be drawn from the defendant’s failure to testify. The Court stated, “Upon request of a defendant who did not testify in his own behalf, but not otherwise, the court must state that the fact that he did not testify is not a factor from which any inference unfavorable to the defendant may be drawn.” The use of the word “must” indicates a mandatory requirement. The court reasoned that this requirement is just as obligatory as the requirement to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court cited Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287, where the Supreme Court held that a similar federal statute implicitly required a “no inference” charge when requested. The Court of Appeals found the Supreme Court’s reasoning even more applicable to the New York statute, which explicitly mandates the charge.
The court also noted that ignoring the statutory command would undermine the presumption of innocence and shift the burden of proof to the defendant. “How diluted the exercise of this right would become, if the jury were permitted to presume guilt on the basis of a defendant’s refusal to testify.”
By emphasizing the mandatory nature of the instruction and the importance of protecting the defendant’s constitutional rights, the court concluded that the failure to provide the instruction was reversible error per se, regardless of the strength of the evidence against the defendant.