Mark David Johnson, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee — Hart, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice Hart concurred in the conclusion that the prosecutor's question about remorse was not an improper comment on Johnson's failure to testify. She reasoned that the remark could naturally refer to Johnson's post-collision conduct, respond to defense counsel's characterization of the incident, and refer to the absence of remorse testimony from Johnson's witnesses. Because this is a concurrence, it states no independent holding.