Opinion ID: 1176257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: prosecutorial comment on defendant's post-miranda silence

Text: Defendant asserts that his privilege against self-incrimination was violated by a remark made by the prosecutor at trial. At trial, an FBI agent, testifying for the State, went on at some length on direct examination about statements he had made to Shickles at the time of arrest. At that point, defense counsel made the following objection: Your Honor, I move to have all of that stricken. He goes on for five minutes talking about all the things he said to Mr. Shickles and there is no response to that. I would move the court to have that stricken from the record. Before the court ruled on the objection, the prosecutor argued: I think an inference can be drawn from that, as long as the Miranda warning has been given, whether he answers or not. Accusations are made, he remains silent, I think there is an implication there that can be reasonably drawn. Defendant made no objection to the prosecutor's statement, and the court then overruled defendant's motion to strike. On appeal, Shickles argues that the prosecutor's statements constituted misconduct. The State responds that defense counsel made no specific objection to the prosecutor's statement, and, therefore, Shickles is precluded from raising the issue on appeal. The State's point is well taken. An objection must be both timely and specific. State v. McCardell, 652 P.2d 942 (Utah 1982). Here, an objection was raised to the FBI agent's statement, but no objection was raised to the prosecutor's statements. Therefore, the issue is not properly before us. See State v. Hales, 652 P.2d 1290 (Utah 1982).