Opinion ID: 1772873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Dr. Jenkins's testimony

Text: Appellant called Dr. Jenkins to testify during the sentencing phase. Appellant now contends that his trial attorneys were ineffective because they did not object during the testimony of Dr. Jenkins when he responded to a question on cross-examination concerning his psychiatric interview with appellant. On direct examination, appellant's counsel asked Dr. Jenkins if he had reviewed a report on appellant prepared by the Arkansas State Hospital. Dr. Jenkins replied that he had reviewed the report. On cross-examination, the State asked Dr. Jenkins if, in his opinion, appellant had the ability to form the specific mental intent of premeditated and deliberated purpose in killing a person] Dr. Jenkins responded by volunteering that I did not have the opportunity to interview him around all of those events because of his Fifth Amendment rights, but[.] The State then restated its question, making it clear that the question was directed to Dr. Jenkins about his conclusion based on the report from the Arkansas State Hospital. On redirect examination, Dr. Jenkins confirmed that the Arkansas State Hospital had reached the same results that he had reached. We have held that an inadvertent comment by a witness with respect to an accused's post-arrest silence that was not responsive to the prosecutor's question did not constitute a violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), or warrant a mistrial. Tarkington v. State, 313 Ark. 399, 855 S.W.2d 306 (1993). Where a comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence is not an attempt to impeach the defendant, it is not the type of comment prohibited by the Court in Doyle, supra . Ferrell v. State, 325 Ark. 455, 929 S.W.2d 697 (1996). Here, Dr. Jenkins's testimony was during the sentencing phase of appellant's trial after appellant had already been found guilty. We conclude that Dr. Jenkins's inadvertent remark did not violate the principles of Doyle, supra . Accordingly, appellant's counsel was not ineffective for failure to pursue this issue, and we affirm the trial court on this point.