Opinion ID: 2637435
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: testimony on appellant's silence

Text: [¶ 21] Appellant argues that reversible error was committed when testimony was introduced concerning his invocation of his right to remain silent. Officer Clark testified as the prosecution's witness concerning a conversation that occurred between him and Appellant at the scene. The pertinent portion of that testimony follows: A I asked him if [the victim] was at home. He advised that, yes, she was at home. I asked him if she was okay. And he advised me, no, that she was not okay, that she was dead. Q Okay. Did [Appellant] say anything else to you at this point? A That he was feeling ill. Q Okay. A And it was at that point that I took him back into his apartment and sat him on his couch. Q Okay. And at that point, did he say anything else to you? A Yes. He advised that he didn't  he didn't feel that he wanted to say anything else to me. Q Okay. Did he reassure you in any fashion? A Yes, he did. Q What did he say? A When I sat on the couch with him and I turned to walk away, he kept trying to reassure me that I didn't have to worry about him, that he wasn't dangerous. [¶ 22] Later, during Officer Clark's testimony, the defense moved for a mistrial. Appellant argues that the denial of that motion was erroneous under the decision in Tortolito v. State, 901 P.2d 387 (Wyo. 1995). The Tortolito case states that prosecutorial use of the citizen's silence to infer the guilt of the citizen is constitutionally prohibited. 901 P.2d at 390. Failure to respect the constitutional right of the citizen-accused not to have his silence called to the jury's attention will entitle the accused to a reversal of conviction. Id. But, a reference to silence which is not a comment will not be reversed absent a showing of prejudice. Id. A comment upon an accused's silence occurs when it is used to the prosecution's advantage either as substantive evidence of guilt or to suggest to the jury that the silence is an admission of guilt. 901 P.2d at 391. [¶ 23] At the trial in the Tortolito case, the prosecutor's questions to police officers elicited numerous answers that Tortolito remained silent when officers accused him of taking money. Id. During his opening statement, the prosecutor mentioned Tortolito's silence in the face of police accusations. Id. During his closing argument, he characterized the silence as an admission. Id. [¶ 24] Application of the Tortolito doctrine to this case demonstrates that the prosecution did not comment upon Appellant's silence. The prosecution did not attempt to use his silence to its advantage. There was no argument to the jury that this was evidence of guilt or an admission of guilt. Appellant does not show that he was prejudiced by the officer's remark. Therefore, the trial court did not commit error by denying the motion for a mistrial.