WPCuz O Dښ 8ƃt!x\&p\}eAa#zReP-ǣIǭU]bAڹFF^ToG&ʎLt,hVqہ?z(r\)gy"N&2c<IH/Gg 3jZ~E{pBF݃r,$gʁ Crx '@&դsyħ8&T+qe5_#Q@\ &: ^asأ?ySs-jj$u0[u2v%zoKybBxCWK@#A,c= %}'jBȦy|H>}VR% ;Kmӿꊤ(iRHF%2{X!nebҠ?[ϸ<3;)ٻ.EPBw+»UB.4 %bh 0[2 0 0 ! 0E 0ug 0i D+! 0 0=t 0 AQ> mh$ 0 C2~u!$w('Z,')-- /1n1 0rn4N4 B444`55U:s6s6s6s6s6s6s6s6s6s6s6s6s6s6266 0 hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyi D3mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu#!.y.y.y.y.yOz^ iz%2A`ArialTT'  'IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE 6Tom & Kathy Greenholtz60Tom & Kathy Greenholtz .   H4heading 1heading 1&    C%2A`ArialTTC         XXXC%2A`ArialTTC'  h:Default ParaDefault Paragraph Font        `:footnote reffootnote reference        V}r:footnote texfootnote text  C%2A`ArialTTC        XXXC%2A`ArialTTC8$,TitleTitle          (e2F$ !8!X=PXX=PXXX=P   'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2F$ !8!X=PXX=PXXX=P   ($    (e2F$ !8!X=PXX=PXXX=P      C<< cU ^  j)XM&XXM&XXXM&   _XXXM&M=9z (  p @ H@E %% %% %%%%X &&%%E1 0 8@H!#%XEXM&XX   ($     t_X 7XM&XXM&XXXM&     3    ݀XXM&SeeUnitedStatesv._Tavares_,100F.3d995,999(D.C.Cir.1996);CommissionerofCorrection  v.Rodriguez,610A.2d631,636n.9(Conn.1992),overruledonproceduralgrounds,Simmsv.Warden,640  A.2d601(Conn.1994);Statev._Paulsen_,726A.2d902,907(N.H.1999);Statev._Arguelles_,921P.2d439,  441(Utah1996);Statev.Flynn,527N.W.2d343(Wis.Ct.App.1994);Statev.Robinson,982P.2d590   (Wash.1999). P H Ѐ _X 7XM&XXM&XXXM&     4    ݀XXM&Althoughtheprocedureadoptedbythemajoritydoescallfortrialcounseltovoirdirethe  defendant,thetrialcourtneverthelessisthefinalarbiterofwhetheravalidwaiverhasbeenmade.When  thereisevidencethatavalidwaiverhasnotbeenmade,thetrialcourt isobligedtoquestionthedefendant  directlytotheextentnecessarytoensureavalidwaiver.    ~X 7XM&XXM&XXXM&     5    ݀XXM&IwishtoreiteratethatIaminfullagreementwiththemajoritythataSixthAmendmentrightto  counselanalysisisimproperinrighttotestifycases.Nevertheless,IbelievethemajoritysrelianceonSixth  AmendmentcasestosupportharmlesserroranalysisundereithertheTennesseeConstitutionortheFifth  Amendmentisintellectuallysuspect.    PX 7XM&XXM&XXXM&     6    ݀XXM&SeePeoplev.Johnson,72Cal.Rptr.2d805,820(Cal.Ct.App.1998);Statev.Silva,890P.2d  702,712(Haw.Ct.App.1995),overruledonothergrounds,Tachibanav.State,900P.2d1293(Haw.1995);  Peoplev.Solomon,560N.W.2d651,65456(Mich.Ct.App.1996).XM&X   X 7XM&XXM&XXXM&     7    ݀XXM&ThesetwocasesrelyingonOrtegaareStatev.SilvaandPeoplev.Solomon.TheCalifornia  CourtofAppealsfoundharmlesserrorinPeoplev.JohnsonwithoutrelyingonOrtega.However,the  attorneyinJohnsondeniedhisclienttherighttotestifybecausehebelievedthathisclientwasgoingto  presentperjuredtestimony.Becausethereisnofundamentalrighttopresentperjuredtestimony,the   holdinginJohnsondoesnotseemtosupportthemajoritysconclusionthattherighttotestifygenerallyis P H subjecttoharmlesserror.    X 7XM&XXM&XXXM&     8    ݀XXM&Thefundamentalmisconceptionhereisthatthedefendantisnotmerelyanotherwitnessforthe  defense. Infact,themostimportantwitnessforthedefenseinmanycriminalcasesisthedefendant  himself.Rock,483U.S.at52.            X 7XM&XXM&XXXM&     11    ݀XXM&Theimportanceofthisopportunitycannotbeoverestimated. Speechispower:speechisto  persuade,toconvert,tocompel.Itistobringanotheroutofhisbadsenseintoyourgoodsense.See  RalphWaldoEmerson,LettersandSocialAims(1876).3|x%2A`ArialTTJ2PQP%2A`ArialTTXXX2PQXP%2A`ArialTTg2PQP"  *Times New RomanTTXXC0XhX(J8$XtXXtXXXt   d@q'! V F"X=PXX=PXXX=P   _'X=PXXX=P'dX'X=P   Ad FILED'X=PX'd  November15,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,cAZ"Arial Regular**~**D"**S$+ST43~*T*#StTTTS*$*T*T *TT +j%tThT+ tT0+;WtTThTv+htTTGTr+<f+4,tTT8+~+hGTd>hTv,h+TGG+Dv,TTGQ`Q;+*Y`QB, v,GTTT",*00TW?:,1TFFtTTN,J~,v,GTWv,WWYW$+Wol ./,-G-P/,WT60EN.MOR,D",Ȏ,./,.G-P/,~WT2538.TMP:S-$-T@-T -T-7 G4F.$FG4-.F.~-P/SXdQ. O*  -M /-O* /--M /-_O*-5/-_O*2$ /- p2J4; = N/.. .D/p2J4GXC:\windows\temp\~wt2538.TMPg@:../@./G^/P/@.WTSPELUS.QCSd.P/SxG.nL/dG .x.P/SG.J/dGx...gg...6x7x.&IggG;; =Xp2/wXB*4XGXp2"//g6?"/0C:\windows\temp\~wt2538.TMP; = N/q0q0 q0D/O*c:\windows\WTSPELUS.QC; =GX//^wX GX1ːwX3XGXC:\windows\temp\p2538.TMP/L5-: GP17~6K _b~WTCC60EN.DLL,(/~x; =0/GXwX0 GX0'wX.X0p2wX0vLwX(X0p2wX1nIwX(X0p2CC0AO*CO* 21211aCJ1O* 1#7@21c:\windows\WTSPELUS.QCS; = 1/GX;   XXGXGX1wXN4XGX1AIwXN4Xp2N4XwX1 HwX(Xp2wX1>wX(Xp2wX 2hwX(Xp22(XChwX2*2wCLLCD2@=wg3h2w3 wg3h2 U: _;;22eeXdG6e2Le5B::2x w)e25weC3@=wg;5;345483% w_/F3F3<n}31U~3Xn oFUSw3s:wl3Wol? 3&Woooloooo35ns* Y4hn44r 'w]4r&48wnwn:4A4Q4/WTAPI/PI-c:\windows\/U-____44 4@<444t< 0-47LH45MSUS_/^bx6KKBJ4;c:\windows\wpspelus.supc:\windows\WTSPELUS.QCS5twnTwnswnwnwnwnwn"wn   4 H  0-47LHXn Ihnn(Ytn,ilnnu I7PULnn(I4IIjh4 lԐ@_f 5Òht 4/h/h lԐ@/h  (f(3$ !8!X=PXX=PXXX=P       0   X 7XM&XXM&XXXM&     10    ݀XXM&ThemajoritysaysthatIhaveoverlookedthefactthatadefendantinapostconvictionhearing  willbeabletoofferwhathistestimonywouldhavebeen.Suchanapproachwouldhaveofferedthis  appellantnorelief,however,becausehisversionofeventswaspresentedtothejuryintheformof  statementsmadetopoliceandstatementsmadeinacivildeposition.Thejuryatthesecondtrialdidnot   gettheopportunitytojudgefirsthandthecredibilityofthedefendantortoobservehowhistestimonywould P H havewithstoodcrossexamination.Althoughwecanneverknowforsure,Iwouldbewillingtoriskanew   trialonthepremisethatthesefactors,amongothers,contributedtotheresultinthefirsttrial.####'dxd X 7XM&XXM&XXXM&     9    ݀XXM&Infact,thedefensedidnotofferanywitnessesatthesecondtrial. _X 7XM&XXM&XXXM&     1    ݀XXM&ThemajoritysaysthatIhavefundamentally_misperceived_Ԁthenatureoftheharmlesserror  doctrineasconstitutingaprotectionofconstitutionalrights.Tobesure,Idonotbelievethattheharmless  errordoctrineprovidesanygenuineprotectionfortherighttotestify.   Infact,applicationoftheharmlesserrordoctrineallowstheerosionoftherighttotestifybecause   itpermitscourtstooverlookorignoredeprivationsoftherightundercertaincircumstances.Underthe P H harmlesserrordoctrine,thesignificanceoftherighttotestifydependsentirelyupontheamountofprejudice   sufferedbythedefendant.Initsmostbasicsense,noprejudiceequalsnorighttotestify.    Aruleofautomaticreversal,however,affordsrealprotectionfortherighttotestifybecauseit   ensuresanewtrialforadefendantwhohasbeendeprivedtheexerciseofthisfundamentalright.Therefore, p h whenIspeakofthemajorityaffordinglessprotectionfortherighttotestifybyapplyingthedoctrineof 80  harmlesserror,Imeanthatthemajorityhaschosentoprovidelessprotectionforthedenialoftherightthan   itwouldhaveifthemajorityhadchosentoprovideforautomaticreversal. _X 7XM&XXM&XXXM&     2    ݀XXM&Idonotmeantoimplythatthiscourtshouldsomehowengageinthedubiousenterpriseof   rankingconstitutionalrightsinorderofimportance.ImeanonlythattheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthas  statedthatthefundamentalrightofacriminaldefendanttotestifyattrialis [_e]ven_Ԁmorefundamentalthan  therightofselfrepresentation.SeeRock,483U.S.at52.Thishavingbeensaid,Icanseenoreasonwhy   the [_e]ven_Ԁmorefundamentalrightshouldnotbeaffordedtheprotectionofautomaticreversal. P H HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0 _Ql'L !8!X=PXX=PXXX=P   _TR[A'3'A' Legal3'TX  8=PXdd8        v%[@0,j:`  `@E  ` 8ttxPX  v_INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE   V!          ATKNOXVILLE       0      8     NAPOLEONMOMON,   8   )   @d   0      8   ) Appellant,     8   )  0   0      8   )     v.  0      8   )  No.E199600007SCR11PC     0      8   )STATEOFTENNESSEE,   8   )       0      8   )      Appellee.     8   )   p  &    XX=P       <CONCURRING/DISSENTINGOPINION $ #<1# "F !    X=PXX=PXXX=P'"     IconcurwiththeconclusionoftheCourtthattherighttotestifyisfundamental,andIagreewiththeproceduralprotectionsthattheCourtnowrequirestoensureavalidwaiverofthatright.However,becauseIamunabletoreconcilethemajorityscharacterizationoftherighttotestifyasbeingfundamentalandpersonaltothedefendantwiththemajoritysconclusionthattherightissubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis,Idissent. Themajorityhasresearchedandtracedtherightofacriminaldefendanttospeakinhisorherownbehalfattrialwiththoughtfulnessandcarefulattention.Asthemajorityrecognizes,thisrighthasbeenrecognizedinTennesseeinoneformoranothersincetheverybeginningofstatehood,andasfarbackas1796,thecommonlawprohibitiononadefendantsrighttospeakattrialhasfoundnosanctuaryinourcriminaljurisprudence.Therighttotestifyhasalsoachievedfundamentalstatusunderfederallaw,andthemajorityquotesRockv.Arkansas,483U.S.44,51(1987), L4p). asstatingthattherighttotestify isoneoftherightsthatareessentialtodueprocess 6<+0 oflawinafairadversaryprocess.Themeticulousandpainstakingresearchofbothstateandfederallawundertakenbythemajorityexposesthetruthofthesepropositions.  Toconcludeitsthoroughanalysisofthefundamentalnatureoftherightto   testify,theCourtcorrectlystatesthat itisbeyondseriousdisputethattheright[ofa  criminaldefendanttotestify]hasachievedfundamentalstatusunderthestateand h`  federalconstitutions.Itiswithsomewonder,then,thatthemajorityholdsthatthe H@  righttotestifyisnotsofundamentalastodefyharmlesserroranalysis. (   Atonetime,Tennesseecourtsregularlyheldthatviolationsofconstitutional  rightscouldneverconstituteharmlesserror.SeeBriggsv.State,207Tenn.253,338  S.W.2d265(1960).FollowingBriggs,however,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin  Chapmanv.California,386U.S.18,24(1967),heldthatmostconstitutionalerrors  weresubjecttoharmlesserroranalysissolongastheerrorwasfoundtobeharmless h` beyondareasonabledoubt.Indeed,asthisCourthasdeclared, inmodern H!@ jurisprudence,thereisapresumptionthatharmlesserrorshouldbeapplied.Statev. (#  Williams,977S.W.2d101,105(Tenn.1998). %   Thispresumptionofharmlesserroranalysishasneverbeenconclusive, (!$ however,andsomeconstitutionalrightsaresofundamentalthattheirviolationis *#& neversubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis.Themajoritytodayadoptsthefederal ,%( harmlesserroranalysisformulatedbyChiefJusticeRehnquistinArizonav. h.`'* Fulminante,499U.S.279(1991),toholdthattherighttotestifyissubjecttoharmless H0@), error.InFulminante,theCourtfashionedacuriousdichotomybetweenthoseerrors (2 +.  occurri[ing]duringthepresentationofthecasetothejury,id.at307,andthose 4-0  affectingtheframeworkwithinwhichthetrialproceedsratherthansimplyanerrorin 5.2     thetrialprocessitself.Id.at310.Onlytherightsfallingintothelattercategoryare  beyondthereachofharmlesserroranalysis.Amongtherightslistedbythecourt  whoseinfringementconstitutesastructuraldefectistherighttoselfrepresentationat   trial.Id.;seealsoMcKasklev.Wiggins,465U.S.168,177(1984)Withitscitationto   McKasklev.Wiggins,theSupremeCourtreaffirmedthat therighttospeakforoneself  entailsmorethantheopportunitytoaddonesvoicetothecacophonyofothers. h`  McKaskle,465U.S.at177.TheMcKaskleCourtacknowledgedthatadenialofthe H@  righttospeakforonesselfimplicatesconcernsbeyondthemerepresentationof (  evidencetoajury;theabilitytoexerciseoftherightofselfrepresentation affirm[s]the  dignityandautonomyoftheaccusedand[allows]thepresentationofwhatmay,at  leastoccasionally,betheaccusedsbestpossibledefense.Id.   Ibelievethissamerationaleisevenmoretruewithrespecttoadefendants  righttotestify.Therighttotestifyis,afterall,anintegralpartofthedefendantsright h` toconductadefense,andliketherightofselfrepresentation,therighttotestifyalso H!@ affirmsthedignityandautonomyoftheaccused.Infact,astheUnitedStates (#  SupremeCourthasdeclared, [e]venmorefundamentaltoapersonaldefensethan %  therightofselfrepresentation...isanaccusedsrighttopresenthisownversionof &" eventsinhisownwords.Adefendantsopportunitytoconducthisowndefenseby (!$ callingwitnessesisincompleteifhemaynotpresenthimselfasawitness.Rock,483 *#& U.S.at52(emphasisadded). ,%(  Acarefulreviewofthemajoritysharmlesserroranalysisrevealsthe H0@), conspicuousabsenceofanyadequateanswertomostessentialquestioninthis (2 +. debate:Ifdenialoftherightofselfrepresentationisnotsubjecttoharmlesserror 4-0 analysis,howcanthisCourttheninsistthatdenialofthemorefundamentalrightofa  defendanttotestifyissomehowlessworthyofprotection?Itisbewilderingthatthe  majoritywoulddevoteseveralpagestoestablishingthefundamentalnatureofthe   righttotestifyonlytolaterdenyitsfundamentalnaturewhenaskedtoprovidefora   ruleofautomaticreversal.n   1      ׀Untilthemajorityisabletoprovideananswertowhy  deprivationofthemorefundamentalrightisnotdeservingofautomaticreversal"and h`  Isuspecttheycannot"Imustrespectfullydissent.p    2      ׀ H@    Insupportofitsviewthatdenialoftherighttotestifyissubjecttoharmless  erroranalysis,themajorityreliesinpartoncaselawfromotherjurisdictions.Asthe  majoritystates, Thevastmajorityofjurisdictionswhichhaveconsideredthisissue  haveheldthatharmlesserroranalysisapplieswhenadefendantestablishesadenial  oftherighttotestifyundertheFifthAmendmentorthattheprejudiceprongof  Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668(1984)[,]mustbeestablishedifthedefendant h` istoproveineffectiveassistanceofcounsel....WhileIagreethatsuchcasesexist, H!@  Iquestiontheproprietyofthespecificcasescitedbythemajoritytosupportits (#  conclusionthatadenialoftherighttotestifyissubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis  underTennesseelaw.    Oftheninecasescitedbythemajorityopinionforthepropositionthatdenialof   therighttotestifyissubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis,sixofthesecasesanalyzethe  issuefollowingaSixthAmendmentineffectiveassistanceofcounselapproach.         3      ׀The h`  jurisdictionsadoptingaSixthAmendmentapproachgenerallybelievethatthe H@  diligenceoftrialcounselisthebestprotectionfortherighttotestify.Therefore, (  accordingtothisapproach,itineluctablyfollowsthataclaimofineffectiveassistance  ofcounselwouldbetheproperremedy.    Inthiscase,however,theCourthasrefusedtodecidetheSixthAmendment  claimasoriginallypresentedbytheparties.Instead,themajorityhaschosentoafford  reliefbaseduponthetextofArticleI,section9oftheTennesseeConstitutionandthe h` FifthAmendmenttothefederalconstitution.Further,themajorityhasadopteda H!@ procedurebywhichthecourt"andnottrialcounsel"isrequiredtoensureavalid (#  waiveroftherighttotestify.      h   4      ׀Byadoptingsuchaprocedure,theCourthasrejected %  thenotionthattrialcounselaloneisinthebestpositiontotheprotecttherightto &"  testify.Assuch,IbelievethatrelianceonSixthAmendmentcasesisquestionableat (!$ best,andsuchauthorityshouldnotbeconsideredinconcludingthattherighttotestify  issubjecttoharmlesserrorundertheTennesseeConstitution.         5      ׀    Thethreeremainingcasescitedbythemajorityforthepropositionthatadenial   oftherighttotestifyissubjecttoharmlesserroranalysisdofollowaFifthAmendment  approach.         6      ׀ThesecasesprimarilyrelyupontheapproacharticulatedinOrtegav. h`  OLeary,843F.2d258(7thCir.1988),          7      ׀whichessentiallyanalyzesadenialoftheright H@  totestifyfromtheperspectiveofadenialoftherighttopresentotherwitness (  testimony.FullyinaccordwithOrtega,themajorityproposesamultifactoredtestto  determinetheharmfulnessofadenialoftherighttotestify.Asevidencedbythefour  enumeratedfactors,themajorityapparentlybelievesthatthetestimonyofadefendant  isnomoreimportantthanthatofanyotherdefensewitness.         8          Themajoritystatesthatinsomecases, thedefendantstestimonywouldhave h` noimpact,orevenanegativeimpact,ontheresultoftrial.TheCourtalsostatesthat H!@ inothercases, denialofthedefendantsrighttotestifymaybedevastatingtothe (#  defense.However,undersuchcircumstances,areviewingcourt willsimplyconclude  thattheerrorwasnotharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.(emphasisadded).   Withallduerespecttothemajority,Ifailtoseehowinmostcasesareviewing   courtcouldconcludethatadefendantsomittedtestimonyis devastatingtothe  defense.Theappellantsowncaseisanexcellentexampleofhowthemajoritystest h`  failstoproperlyaccountfortheharmfulnessoftheerror.Forexample,theappellants H@  testimonyinthesecondtrialwouldhavebeencumulativebecausehisversionof (  eventswasalreadypresentedtothejurythroughhispriorstatementsmadetopolice  andthosegivenindepositions.TheStatewasabletopresentexpertproofthatthe  shootingwasnottheresultofastrugglebecausetheshotwasfiredmorethanthree  feetaway,andthedefendantstestimonywasnotstrictlyneededsincethedefense  strategywassimplytoputtheStatetoitsburdenofprovingtheoffensebeyonda  reasonabledoubt.c   9      ׀UsingthisCourtsowntest,mostcourtswouldprobablyconsider h` denialofthedefendantsrighttotestifyinthesecondtrialharmlessbeyonda H!@ reasonabledoubt. (#    Oneofthecriticismsofharmlesserroranalysisgenerallyisthatappellate &" courtsareillequippedtojudgetheactualharmresultingfromadenialofa (!$ constitutionalright.Theappellantscaseisunique,though,becauseitaffordsa *#& reviewingcourttheopportunitytoactuallyobservetheharmbycomparingtheresults ,%( oftwotrialswhoseonlysubstantialandmaterialdifferenceisthelackofthe h.`'* appellantstestimony.Whentheappellanttestifiedinthefirsttrial,hereceivedan H0@), acquittalonthechargeoffirstdegreemurder,andthejurywasunabletoreacha (2 +. verdictonthelesserchargeofseconddegreemurder.However,whentheappellant  didnottestifyatthesecondtrial,thejurywasabletoreachaverdict.Idonot  discounttherealitythatnotwojuriesareeverthesame,butonecouldcertainlyargue   thatgiventheresultsofthefirsttrial,thefailureoftheappellanttotestifyinthesecond   trialcertainlyleadtohisconvictionofseconddegreemurder.    Ifareviewingcourtcanconcludethatdenialoftherighttotestifyinthesecond H@  trialwasharmfulinthiscase,itwillnodoubtonlybebecausethecourthasthebenefit (  ofadifferentresultinasecondtrial.Isuspectthatinmostcases,neitherthisCourt  noranyothercourtwilllikelyhavethebenefitofcomparingtheoutcomesoftwo  differenttrialswhoseonlysubstantialandmaterialdifferenceisthedefendantsfailure  totestify.Withoutthebenefitofthefirsttrial,itwouldnotstrainlogictoconcludethat  denialoftheappellantsrighttotestifyinthesecondtrialwasharmlessbeyonda  reasonabledoubt.Assuch,theapplicationoftheCourtsmultifactortestmayamount h` toprotectionofafundamentalrightonlywhenthedefendanthasbeenfortuitously H!@ triedtwiceandcandemonstratedifferentoutcomes.N   10      ׀Theapplicationofsuchatest (#  amountstonomoreprotectionthanonecouldexpectfromapapertiger,andthis %  fundamentalrightdeservestheprotectionofautomaticreversal. &"         Iprofoundlydisagreethatadenialoftherighttotestifyismerelya trialerror *#& involvingonlythepresentationofevidencetoajury.Insoholding,thisCourthas ,%( ignoredthattheevidentiaryvalueofthedefendantstestimonyisnottheonlyconcern h.`'* involvedwhenexaminingtheharmincurredbyadenialoftherighttotestify.Theright  totestifyispartofthelargerrightofadefendanttopresentadefense,anditisoften  theonlyopportunitythatadefendanthastopresenthisorherversionofeventstothe   jury.         11      ׀Ashasbeensaidoftherighttotestify:     B.` 0 8@H!#XB8 ` 8 ` #` #[Therighttotestify]isembracedintherightofthedefendanttomeetand h`  denytheaccusationagainsthimandtopresentevidenceinhisbehalf, XP  includinghimselfasawitness.Thedecisionwhetherdefendantwilltestify H@  isachoicebetweenmerepassivityattrialandactiveparticipationthrough 80  whichthedefendantcaninjecthisownacts,voiceandpersonalityintothe (  process.Takingthestandisthedefendantsopportunity,ifhewantsit,to  facehisaccusersandthejury,tellhisstory,submittoexamination,and  exercisesuchabilityashemayhavetopersuadethosewhowillmakea  decisionthatmayvitallyaffecthislife.Andthewitnessboxgivesthe  defendantaforumtospeaktoaworldlargerthanthecourtroom.  Considerationssuchasthesemaketherighttotestifyfundamentaltothe  fairness,thedignityandthevitalityofthetwentiethcenturyjudicialprocess. (# (# 8 ` 8 ` #` #  (# (#   E+  0 8@H!#` XESeeWrightv.Estelle,572F.2d1071,1081(5thCir.1978)(Godbold,J.,dissenting) xp (citationomitted).AsIhavetriedtoshow,theactualandinherentworthofa X P defendantstestimonyconsistsofmuchmorethanitsevidentiaryvaluealone. 8"0  AlthoughIamconcernedwiththemajoritysapplicationofharmlesserror %! analysistoadenialoftherighttotestify,IamalsoconcernedthatthisCourtneedsto ' # developaconsistentapproachtodecidewhichfundamentalrightsdefyharmlesserror )"% analysis.Today,themajorityholdsthatdenialoftherighttotestifyissubjectto +$' harmlesserroranalysisbecauseitconstitutesa trialerror,andtherefore,theCourt x-p&) seemstofullyadoptthefederalharmlesserrorstandardunderArizonav.Fulminante. X/P(+ Previously,however,thisCourthasrecognizedrightsthatdefyharmlesserror 810*- analysisbaseduponexpressrecognitioninourconstitutionandstatuteswithout  regardtotheFulminantedistinctionbetween trialerrorsand structuraldefects.    InStatev.Lowe,811S.W.2d526,527(Tenn.1991),weaddressedtheissue   ofwhetheradenialofadefendantsstatutoryrighttoacontinuanceaftertheState  filesanuntimelynoticeofitsintenttoseekanenhancedsentence isabsolute,or h`  ratherissubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis.Althoughwehadneverpreviouslystated H@  thatdenialofthatrightprejudicesthejudicialsystemasawhole,weneverthelessheld (  thatharmlesserroranalysisdidnotapplybecause therightisabsolute.These  findingsweremadesimplyupontheplainlanguageofastatuteguaranteeingthe  right,thelanguageoftheRulesofCriminalProcedure,andtheAdvisoryCommittee  commentstotheRulesofCriminalProcedure.Similarly,inStatev.Muse,967  S.W.2d764,768(Tenn.1998),weadopteda defiesharmlesserroranalysiswith  respecttoadefendantsrighttobepresentatjuryselection.InMuse,ourconclusion h` wasderivedsimplyfromourbeliefthatthestateconstitutionandstatuteselevatedthis H!@ righttofundamentalstatusinTennessee,incapableofharmlesserroranalysis.See (#  967S.W.2dat766,768. %  ̀ Asthemajorityplainlyconcedes,therightofadefendanttotestifyathisorher (!$ owntrialisguaranteednotonlybythestateconstitution,butalsobystatutes,prior *#& caselaw,andcurrentpractice.Evenifadenialoftherighttotestifyisgenerallyheld ,%( toaharmlesserroranalysisunderthefederalstandard,priorprecedentfromthis h.`'* Courtallbutcompelsacontraryfindingaccordingtostatelaw.Asthemajority H0@), recognizeswithitscitationtoRockv.Arkansas,thedenialoftherighttotestifystrikes (2 +. attheveryheartoffairnessinthesystemofcriminaljustice.Itisincongruous, 4-0 therefore,todenythatsuchanerrorprejudicesthesystemasawhole.Iwouldhold  thataunilateraldeprivationbydefensecounselofthedefendantsrighttotestifycan  notconstituteharmlesserrorundereitherthestateorthefederalconstitutions.   Consequently,Irespectfullydissentfromthatpartofthemajorityopinionsubjectingto   harmlesserroranalysistherightofacriminaldefendanttotestify.  ! X'X! IamauthorizedtostatethatJusticeBirchjoinsinthisconcurring/dissenting H@  opinion. (    0      8     ______________________________    0      8     WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUSTICE