In Trout v. State, the court of appeals held that a trial judge is not required to conduct an independent inquiry as to whether a defendant made a knowing and voluntary decision to take the stand at his/her trial. In 2009, the three sons of Lisa Trout moved in with their father, Dunovan Trout after Lisa Trout was incarcerated for felony DUI. At some point following, the oldest son, J.T., admitted to his father that Lisa Trout had sexually abused him. Trout was charged with two counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. At trial, Trout chose to testify in her own defense where she admitted alcohol abuse and, when asked directly if she thought she might have sexually abused her son while black-out drunk, responded “yes.” Trout was convicted on all three counts, but claimed the trial court made an error by not conducting and on-the-record inquiring into her decision to waive her right of silence. The court of appeals declared that Trout’s claim is not supported by law and would be a new procedural rule that would require the trial court to conduct an inquiry every time a defendant chooses to take the stand at trial. The court further articulated that such a rule is unnecessary, as there is no evidence that criminal defendants are being coerced or pressured by their lawyers to testify against their will. The court also noted that such a rule might have a chilling effect on defendants choosing to take the stand, especially in instances when they do so contrary to their lawyer’s advice. Affirming the lower court, the court of appeals held a trial judge is not required to conduct an independent inquiry as to whether a defendant made a knowing and voluntary decision to take the stand at his/her trial.