Opinion ID: 1699278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Evidence demonstrating defendant exercised his right to remain silent.

Text: Next, defendant complains because the State questioned Dr. Ware about information contained in the report which indicated that acting on his counsel's advice, defendant declined to discuss the circumstances of the offense with the doctor. Again, however, the defense introduced the report into evidence and hence the State was entitled to cross-examine the witness about the information contained in it. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the evidence in no way violates the rule set out in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), which bars the State's use of an accused's post- Miranda silence to impeach his exculpatory account at trial. Id. (Every post-arrest silence is insolubly ambiguous ... [and] ... it would be fundamentally unfair to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial.). There existed no basis for exclusion of this testimony.