Opinion ID: 2607856
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant's Statements On Life Insurance Forms

Text: Following decedent's death, defendant received two life insurance claim forms. Defendant had been given her Miranda rights prior to the time she filled out the insurance forms. With one form she included a death certificate which stated the cause of death as Shot by unknown assailant(s) with firearm. On the other form, in response to the question, How did the accident happen? (Describe fully), defendant wrote Shot by unknown assailants. The prosecution argues that these statements on the life insurance forms are inconsistent with defendant's claim at trial that she shot decedent. The prosecution contends that these statements are admissible as prior inconsistent statements under NMSA 1978, Evid.Rule 801(d)(1)(A) (Repl. Pamp. 1983) and as admissions under NMSA 1978, Evid.Rule 801(d)(2)(A) (Repl. Pamp. 1983). The prosecution further claims that there is no issue of silence involved, since defendant did not remain silent. We agree. New Mexico's Constitution, N.M. Const. art. II, Section 15, and the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. V, prohibit impeachment on the basis of a defendant's silence following Miranda warnings, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See State v. Ramirez, 98 N.M. 268, 648 P.2d 307 (1982); Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). However, defendant in this case made affirmative statements in response to the questions on the forms. The United States Supreme Court has held that cross-examination that merely inquires into prior inconsistent statements makes no unfair use of silence, because a defendant who voluntarily speaks after receiving Miranda warnings has not remained silent. Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404, 100 S.Ct. 2180, 65 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980). The same logic applies to the right to remain silent provided by N.M. Const. art. II, Section 15. Defendant in the instant case voluntarily provided the information requested on the forms. She was not in custody at the time she did so. Therefore, Miranda does not apply, and these statements may be used for proper impeachment purposes at trial.