In the trial of complaints, informations, indictments and other proceedings against
persons charged with crimes or offenses, the person so charged shall, at his or her
own request and not otherwise, be deemed a competent witness. The credit to be given
to his or her testimony shall be left solely to the jury, under the instructions of
the court but the failure of such person to testify shall not be a matter of comment
to the jury by either the court or the prosecutor and shall not be considered by the
jury as evidence against him or her.
State v. Martin, 2007 VT 96 (Vt. 2007). · cites it 4ד[6] We conclude, however, that the Vermont Constitution provides no greater protection than the Fifth Amendment on this issue, and that the trial court's instruction was not prejudicial nor does it warrant reversal.”
State v. Rideout, 933 A.2d 706 (Vt. 2007). “3 Because the court expressly instructed the jury that defendant was not required to impeach daughter, and might not do so “for practical reasons,” we disagree with defendant’s assertion that 13 V.S.A. § 6601 (or the constitutional mandate it implements) applies here.”
State v. Jarrett, 465 A.2d 238 (Vt. 1983). · cites it 2דProbative value for impeachment must be weighted against the chilling effect on the right of a criminal defendant to testify, as guaranteed by 13 V.S.A. § 6601. It is true that the Rules of Evidence were not in effect at the time of the trial in this case, but their subsequent…”
In Re Mecier, 460 A.2d 472 (Vt. 1983). “Instead we hold that whether the right to testify is constitutional or statutory, see 13 V.S.A. § 6601, where, as here, defendant has acquiesced in the competent advice of his attorney not to take the stand, and has failed to assert his right at or before the trial, he is deemed…”
State v. Norton, 353 A.2d 324 (Vt. 1976). “2d 767 (1968); 13 V.S.A. § 6601. The test used to determine if a comment is *106 improper was stated in United States ex rel.”
State v. Shattuck, 450 A.2d 1122 (Vt. 1982). “As a matter of statutory law, see 13 V.S.A. § 6601, and federal constitutional law, see Griffin v.”
State v. Jason Atherton a/k/a Melton, 2016 VT 25 (Vt. 2016). “609, 615 (1965); 13 V.S.A. § 6601, such remarks must be “of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify.”
State v. Powers, 655 A.2d 712 (Vt. 1994). · cites it 2דtate denied him fair notice of the charges as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution; and (3) the State impermissibly commented on his failure to testify, in violation of the Fifth…”
State v. Boise, 498 A.2d 495 (Vt. 1985). “2d 472, 475 (1983) (recognizing such a right); 13 V.S.A. § 6601; Alicea v. Gagnon, 675 F.”
State v. Rocheleau, 313 A.2d 33 (Vt. 1973). “The defendant did not testify and any comment by the court or prosecutor on the accused’s failure to testify is prohibited by 13 V.S.A. § 6601. The state’s attorney did not make any direct comment relative to defendant’s failure to take the stand.”
State v. Platt, 610 A.2d 139 (Vt. 1992). “Defendant argues that this testimony violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the reconsideration proceeding is part of the sentencing procedure and, therefore, he was “compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
State v. Emrick, 278 A.2d 712 (Vt. 1971). · cites it 2ד” The statute referred to and in effect at the time of that trial is 13 V.S.A. § 6601 which reads as follows: “In the trial of complaints, informations, indictments and other proceedings against persons charged with crimes or offenses, the person so charged shall, at his own…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.