Opinion ID: 2120930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Dr. Roy

Text: As the State was preparing to call Dr. Roy to testify at trial, defense counsel objected to any questioning of Dr. Roy that would violate Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). The court overruled the objection and permitted Dr. Roy's testimony. Dr. Roy testified regarding Harms' prearrest, pre Miranda call to the dispatcher and his requests for counsel at that time. As previously noted, such testimony was properly admitted under Wainwright. However, Dr. Roy also testified regarding Harms' refusal to speak with police officers after receiving Miranda warnings. Dr. Roy stated, [W]hen he was explained his Miranda rights, he said, 'I'm not going to talk without my lawyer.' This statement by Dr. Roy commented on Harms' post- Miranda silence and was thus inadmissible as evidence of Harms' sanity pursuant to Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284, 106 S.Ct. 634, 88 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986). In addition, Dr. Roy's written psychiatric evaluation was admitted as an exhibit  at trial. The written evaluation stated in part: Mr. Harms refused to talk to the police officer without the present [sic] of his lawyer. This also was suggestive that he knew the role of his lawyer and the consequences of the alleged offense. Mr. Harms did understand the nature of what he was doing and he did know the difference between right and wrong with respect to what he was doing. While these portions of Dr. Roy's evaluation utilized Harms' post- Miranda silence as evidence of sanity, counsel did not object to their admission. When the State offered the evaluation as an exhibit, defense counsel stated, No objection, Judge. As a result, Harms has waived his right on appeal to assert prejudicial error concerning the evidence received without objection. State v. Harris, ante p. 331, 339, 263 Neb. 331, 640 N.W.2d 24, 33 (2002).