Opinion ID: 1388145
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Comments on Receipt & Understanding of Miranda Rights

Text: Johnson contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that Johnson had received and understood his Miranda rights and later requested and attorney. Johnson argues that this violated Doyle v. Ohio and its progeny. Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed. (2d) 91 (1976), prohibits comment on a defendant's silence after he has received his rights. In State v. Woods , 282 S.C. 18, 316 S.E. (2d) 673 (1984), this Court held that the State could not, through the introduction of evidence that the defendant received and understood Miranda warnings, comment on defendant's silence. In this case, there was testimony that Johnson was advised of his rights when he was arrested. The arresting officer testified that when Johnson was placed in the cell, Johnson started falling asleep within five minutes. When the officer removed the handcuffs and placed Johnson on the floor, he stated that he wanted a lawyer and then went to sleep for approximately four hours. Johnson argues that this evidence was extremely prejudicial because it showed that he affirmatively exercised his rights after being advised of them. We disagree. It is clear that this evidence was introduced to merely explain the events that occurred following Johnson's arrest and not for the purpose of commenting on Johnson's exercise of his rights. No witness ever commented on Johnson's silence. If anything, the presentation of this evidence was beneficial to Johnson in that it bolstered the contention that he had been drinking heavily.