Case Name: Danny Lane IRVIN, Appellant (Defendant below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below)
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming
Jurisdiction: Wyoming
Decision Date: 1977-02-17
Citations: 560 P.2d 372
Docket Number: No. 4562
Parties: Danny Lane IRVIN, Appellant (Defendant below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
Judges: Before GUTHRIE, C. J., RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ., and HAMM, District Judge.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 560
Pages: 372–374

Head Matter:
Danny Lane IRVIN, Appellant (Defendant below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 4562.
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Feb. 17, 1977.
Gerald M. Gallivan, Laramie, signed the brief and appeared in oral argument on behalf of the appellant.
V. Frank Mendicino, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., and Thomas J. Carroll, Legal Intern, Cheyenne, signed the brief and Allen Johnson, Student Intern, Cheyenne, appeared in oral argument on behalf of the appellee.
Before GUTHRIE, C. J., RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ., and HAMM, District Judge.

Opinion:
RAPER, Justice.
During cross-examination of the defendant, the county and prosecuting attorney asked the defendant why he had not told the police about his alibi which he brought out for the first time in his defense. In closing argument the county attorney dwelt at length on the failure of the defendant to inform the police of his alibi, implying fabrication. After being given the Miranda warning following arrest, the defendant had elected to remain silent.
The tactic of the prosecutor is in violation of § 11, Article I, Wyoming Constitution, providing that "No person shall be compelled to testify against himself in any criminal case, Under Amendment V to the United States. Constitution, a parallel provision to that of Wyoming, providing that no person shall be " compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, " the United States Supreme Court in Doyle v. Ohio, 1976, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91, under a similar set of facts, stated that implicit in the Miranda warning is the assurance that silence will carry no penalty and held that use for impeachment purposes of defendant's silence, at time of arrest, after Miranda warnings violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We are compelled to agree.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.