Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Arredondo

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided September 6, 1974No. 2775Published

1Dissent

CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice

(dissenting).

I regret that I must dissent.

Our statute § 13-163 A.R.S. states:

“A. A defendant in a criminal'action or proceeding shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself, but may be a witness in his own behalf. If he offers himself as a witness in his own behalf, he may be cross-examined to the same extent and subject to the same rules as any other witness.
“B. The defendant’s neglect or refusal to be a witness in his own behalf shall not in any manner prejudice him, or be used against him on the trial or proceedings.”

And we have stated:

“We must follow…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. State v. AcostaArizona Supreme Court · 1966
  4. State v. SmithArizona Supreme Court · 1966
  5. State v. RhodesArizona Supreme Court · 1973

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API