O'CONNOR
v.
OHIO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The failure to object in state courts does not bar a petitioner from asserting a federal right when the practice was previously allowed and later invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Petitioner's conviction was upheld by Ohio courts despite a prosecutor's comment on his failure to testify, solely because petitioner failed to object…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Griffin V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This is the second time petitioner has come before this Court with the claim that the prosecutor’s comment upon his failure to testify during his trial for larceny violated the constitutional right to remain silent. In O’Connor v. Ohio, 382 U. S. 286, we considered this contention when we granted certiorari, vacated the conviction and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Ohio for further proceedings in light of our decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609. Following remand, the Ohio court by a closely divided vote upheld petitioner’s conviction solely on the ground that he failed to object to the proscribed comment at his trial and during his first appeal in the state courts. That failure was held to preclude the Ohio appellate courts from considering the claim that petitioner’s federal constitutional rights had been infringed.
The State does not contest the fact that the prosecutor’s remarks violated the constitutional rule announced in Griffin. Moreover, it is clear the prospective application of that rule, announced in Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, does not prevent petitioner from relying on Griffin, since his conviction was not final when the decision in Griffin was rendered. Indeed, in Tehan we cited our remand of petitioner’s case as evidence that Griffin applied to all convictions which had not become final on the date of the Griffin judgment. 382 U. S., at 409, n. 3. Thus, the only issue now before us is the permissibility of invoking the Ohio procedural rule to defeat petitioner’s meritorious federal claim.
We hold that in these circumstances the failure to object in the state courts cannot bar the petitioner from asserting this federal right. Recognition of the States’ reliance on former decisions of this Court which Griffin overruled was one of the principal grounds for the prospective application of the rule of that case. See Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 417. Defendants can no more be charged with anticipating the Griffin decision than can the States. Petitioner had exhausted his appeals in the Ohio courts and was seeking direct review here when Griffin was handed down. Thus, his failure to object to a practice which Ohio had long allowed cannot strip him of his right to attack the practice following its invalidation by this Court.
We therefore grant the petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio. It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)…decided. Our later decision in Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, was based on the premise that prior to Griffin the practice of commenting on the defendant’s silence was well established and thus did not raise an “arguable” issue. Cf. O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U. S. 92.…
-
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967)…liable evidence. The resolution of these values with interests of judicial economy might well dictate a harmless-error rule for such violations. Cf. Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85, 92 (dissenting opinion). Earlier this Term, in O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U. S. 92, we reversed a conviction on the basis of Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, without pausing to consider whether the comment on the defendant’s silence might have been harmless error under the rule the Court announces today, or any other harmless…
-
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1974)…standards appear at pages 4945,4953, and 4960 of the trial transcript. Petitioners’ failure to object to the national-standards instructions ean hardly be used to shift to their shoulders any burden of demonstrating prejudice. See O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U. S. 92 (1966). The Court’s reliance upon Namet v. United States, 373 U. S. 179, 190-191 (1963), and Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427, 436 (1963), cases in which defendants failed to object to instructions which were erroneous at the time the jury was…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965)
- Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406 (U.S. 1966)
- Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1965)