State v. O'Leary

Weintraub, C. J.

(concurring). I join in the opinion of Mr. Justice Wacheneeld but feel it ought to be expressly noted that no view should be inferred therefrom with respect to an issue not raised before us. The trial court charged that in the circumstances therein stated defendant’s “failure to testify with relation to those facts raises a strong presumption that he could not truthfully deny those facts.” (Emphasis added) Defendant did not raise the question whether the instruction should be that the failure to testify will permit the jury to draw an inference that the defendant could not truthfully deny the facts. Both expressions find support in decisions in this state and sometimes in the same opinion. See Parker v. State, 61 N. J. L. 308 (Sup. Ct. 1898), affirmed 62 N. J. L. 801 (E. & A. 1899); State v. Wines, 65 N. J. L. 31 (Sup. Ct. 1900); State v. Twining, 73 N. J. L. 3 (Sup. Ct. 1905), affirmed 73 N. J. L. 683 (E. & A. 1906), affirmed 211 U. S. 78, 29 S. Ct. 14, 53 L. Ed. 97 (1908); State v. Banusik, 84 N. J. L. 640 (E. & A. 1906); State v. Skillman, 76 N. J. L. 464 (Sup. Ct. 1908), affirmed 77 N. J. L. 804 (E. & A. 1909); State v. Callahan, 77 N. J. L. 685 (E. & A. 1909); State v. DiBenedetto, 82 N. J. L. 168 (Sup. Ct. 1912), affirmed 83 N. J. L. 792 (E. & A. 1912); State v. Howard, 83 N. J. L. 636 (E. & A. 1912); State v. Schlosser, 85 N. J. L. 165 (Sup. Ct. 1914), affirmed 86 N. J. L. 374 (E. & A. *117 1914); State v. Schilling, 95 N. J. L. 145 (E. & A. 1920); State v. Kisik, 99 N. J. L. 385 (E. & A. 1924); State v. Rubenstein, 5 N. J. Misc. 387 (Sup. Ct. 1927); State v. Boccadoro, 105 N. J. L. 352 (E. & A. 1929); State v. Lennon, 107 N. J. L. 94 (E. & A. 1930); State v. Gimbel, 107 N. J. L. 235 (E. & A. 1930); State v. Lang, 108 N. J. L. 98 (E. & A. 1931); State v. Sgro, 108 N. J. L. 528 (E. & A. 1932); State v. Jefferson, 131 N. J. L. 70 (E. & A. 1943); State v. Friedman, 135 N. J. L. 414 (Sup. Ct. 1947), reversed 136 N. J. L. 527 (E. & A. 1948); State v. Anderson, 137 N. J. L. 6 (Sup. Ct. 1948); State v. Gawronski, 9 N. J. Super. 51 (App. Div. 1950); State v. Ellrich, 10 N. J. 146 (1952); State v. Carbone, 17 N. J. Super. 446 (App. Div. 1952), affirmed 10 N. J. 329 (1952); State v. Edelman, 19 N. J. Super. 350 (App. Div. 1952); State v. Wilson, 23 N. J. Super. 539 (App. Div. 1952); State v. Marinella, 24 N. J. Super. 49 (App. Div. 1952), certification denied 11 N. J. 612 (1953); State v. Christy, 26 N. J. Super. 459 (App. Div. 1953); State v. Edelman, 26 N. J. Super. 588 (App. Div. 1953); State v. Costa, 11 N. J. 239 (1953); State v. Greely, 11 N. J. 485 (1953); State v. Wise, 19 N. J. 59 (1955); State v. Rogers, 19 N. J. 218 (1955); State v. DeMeo, 35 N. J. Super. 168 (App. Div. 1955), certification denied 19 N. J. 330 (1955); State v. Cerce, 22 N. J. 236 (1956) : and compare with respect to flight, State v. Petrolia, 45 N. J. Super. 230 (App. Div. 1957), certification denied 25 N. J. 43 (September 16, 1957).

Weiftraub, C. J., and Hei-ier, J., concurring in result.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Wbiftratjb, and Justices Heher, Oliphaft, Wachefeeld, Burling, Jacobis and Erafcis — 7.

For reversal — None.