New York Law Review

Tag: No Adverse Inference

  • People v. Miller, 43 N.Y.2d 789 (1977): Defendant’s Choice Regarding No-Inference Jury Instruction

    People v. Miller, 43 N.Y.2d 789 (1977)

    A trial court commits reversible error when it instructs the jury not to draw an unfavorable inference from the defendant’s failure to testify, if the defendant did not request such an instruction.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that it was reversible error for a trial court to give a “no inference” charge (instructing the jury not to draw a negative inference from the defendant’s decision not to testify) when the defendant did not request the charge. The court reasoned that CPL 300.10(2) explicitly states the charge should be given only upon the defendant’s request. The defendant has a right to decide whether such instruction should be given, as the instruction itself might highlight the defendant’s choice not to testify and create prejudice. The dissent argued that forcing the instruction on the defendant is just as harmful as refusing the instruction when requested.

    Facts

    The defendant was on trial and chose not to testify in their own defense. The trial judge, despite the defendant not requesting it, instructed the jury that they could not draw a negative inference from the defendant’s choice not to testify.

    Procedural History

    The lower court convicted the defendant. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by giving the no-inference instruction without a request. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a trial court commits reversible error when it instructs the jury not to draw an unfavorable inference from the defendant’s failure to testify, if the defendant did not request such an instruction?

    Holding

    Yes, because CPL 300.10(2) explicitly states that the “no inference” charge is to be given only upon the defendant’s request. To give the instruction when it is not requested undermines the defendant’s tactical decision about their defense strategy.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court focused on the plain language of CPL 300.10(2), which states the no-adverse-inference instruction shall be given “but not otherwise” than upon the defendant’s request. The court recognized the sensitive nature of a defendant choosing not to testify and the potential for prejudice regardless of whether the instruction is given. By forcing the instruction on the defendant, the trial court interferes with the defendant’s strategic choice, which is impermissible under the statute.

    The dissent argued that the statute is meant to allow the defendant to decide whether the instruction is given. Refusing to give the instruction when requested is reversible error, and giving the instruction when it’s not requested is just as harmful because it interferes with trial strategy.