State v. Michael T. — concurring

Summary

The concurrence joins the majority's conclusion that the trial court did not violate the governing statute or the defendant's constitutional right by using the statutory phrase "failure to testify" rather than an alternative formulation. It emphasizes that trial courts may use neutral language that does not materially alter the statute's substance, but need not do so, and suggests that the legislature clarify whether any particular wording is required. The concurrence declines to urge the court to exercise supervisory authority to mandate a specific instruction because the defendant did not request that relief.