Opinion ID: 885841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the State violate Clausell's right to due process and privilege against self-incrimination by commenting on Clausell's post- Miranda silence and is this issue reviewable under the common law plain error doctrine?

Text: ¶ 51 As a preliminary matter, Clausell concedes he failed to object at trial to any of the comments about which he now complains. Rather, he contends this issue should be reviewed under the common law doctrine of plain error pursuant to State v. Finley (1996), 276 Mont. 126, 915 P.2d 208. In Finley, we articulated the common law exception to the contemporaneous objection rule as follows: [T]his Court may discretionarily review claimed errors that implicate a criminal defendant's fundamental constitutional rights, even if no contemporaneous objection is made and notwithstanding the inapplicability of the § 46-20-701(2), MCA, criteria, where failing to review the claimed error at issue may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process. Finley, 276 Mont. at 137, 915 P.2d at 215 (followed in State v. Sullivan (1996), 280 Mont. 25, 31, 927 P.2d 1033, 1037-38). ¶ 52 In Finley, as in the present case, the defendant argued that statements made by the prosecution during trial regarding the defendant's post-arrest silence violated his right to due process and privilege against self-incrimination. Finley, 276 Mont. at 132, 915 P.2d at 212. After observing in Finley that the right to due process and the privilege against self-incrimination are both, undeniably, fundamental constitutional rights, we concluded that failure to review such claims would have left unsettled a question as to the fundamental fairness of the trial. Finley, 276 Mont. at 138, 915 P.2d at 216. Because Clausell's claims of error in the present case mirror those of the defendant in Finley, we conclude plain error review is appropriate in this case. ¶ 53 We note that we have recently declined to apply the common law plain error doctrine to review a defendant's assertions that prosecutorial comment on the defendant's post- Miranda silence violated his right to due process and his privilege against self-incrimination. State v. Baker, 2000 MT 307, 302 Mont. 408, 15 P.3d 379. In Baker, we acknowledged that the defendant's argument implicated fundamental rights, but concluded the defendant had failed to demonstrate that any fundamental unfairness would result if the issue were not reviewed because his claims of error had no merit. Baker, ¶¶ 14-15. By contrast, in Finley, 276 Mont. at 138, 915 P.2d at 216, and again in Sullivan, 280 Mont. at 32-33, 927 P.2d at 1037-38, we concluded that failure to apply plain error to review a defendant's claim of prosecutorial comment on post- Miranda silence would be fundamentally unfair precisely because the rights at issue were so important. ¶ 54 This apparent inconsistency in our application of plain error doctrine is not isolated. It seems that in some cases we invoke plain error merely because the claimed error implicates a right so fundamental that failure to review would be fundamentally unfair, see, e.g., State v. Brown, 1999 MT 31, ¶ 12, 293 Mont. 268, ¶ 12, 975 P.2d 321, ¶ 12; Finley, 276 Mont. at 138, 915 P.2d at 216; Sullivan, 280 Mont. at 32-33, 927 P.2d at 1037-38, while in other cases we review the merits of a claimed error which implicates fundamental constitutional rights before determining whether fundamental fairness and justice requires the invocation of plain error doctrine. See, e.g., Baker, ¶¶ 14-19, State v. Hart, 2000 MT 332, ¶¶ 50-53, ___ Mont. ___, ¶¶ 50-53, 15 P.3d 917, ¶¶ 50-53. Compare also State v. Weaver, 1998 MT 167, ¶¶ 23-27, 290 Mont. 58, ¶¶ 23-27, 964 P.2d 713, ¶¶ 23-27; with State v. Harris, 1999 MT 115, ¶¶ 10-12, 294 Mont. 397, ¶¶ 10-12, 983 P.2d 881, ¶¶ 10-12. In a third group of cases, we forgo analysis and simply decline to exercise our discretionary power of plain error without comment, regardless of whether fundamental rights were implicated by a claimed error. See, e.g., State v. Weaselboy, 1999 MT 274, ¶ 17, 296 Mont. 503, ¶ 17, 989 P.2d 836, ¶ 17; State v. Herrera, 1998 MT 173, ¶¶ 18-20, 289 Mont. 499, ¶¶ 18-20, 962 P.2d 1180, ¶¶ 18-20. ¶ 55 That said, it is unnecessary to resolve this inconsistency hereneither party has argued that Baker is applicable and the State concedes that plain error review is appropriate in the present case. Rather, we will leave the clarification of our plain error jurisprudence to a future case, inviting other litigants to address and brief this issue. We turn, therefore, to Clausell's substantive arguments. ¶ 56 Relying on Doyle v. Ohio (1976), 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91, Clausell argues the State violated his right to due process and his privilege against self-incrimination by improperly commenting on his silence after having received Miranda warnings. In Doyle, a state prosecutor sought to impeach the defendants' exculpatory statements offered for the first time at trial by asking the defendants on cross-examination why they had failed to offer such explanations at the time of arrest. Doyle, 426 U.S. at 616-17, 96 S.Ct. at 2243-44. The United States Supreme Court held that, because Miranda warnings carry the implicit assurance that silence will carry no penalty for a defendant who chooses not to make a statement, it would be fundamentally unfair and a deprivation of due process to allow the prosecution to use an arrested person's silence to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial. Doyle, 426 U.S. at 618, 96 S.Ct. at 2245. ¶ 57 Our application of the Doyle rule in Sullivan, is instructive to the present discussion. There, the prosecution elicited testimony during its case-in-chief that the defendant twice refused to give a statement to investigating law enforcement officers after having received Miranda warnings. The prosecution also commented on the defendant's refusal to give a statement during opening and closing arguments, in both cases implying the defendant would have spoken to law enforcement officials if he were innocent. Sullivan, 280 Mont. at 29-31, 927 P.2d at 1036. We concluded the testimony and the opening and closing statements constituted Doyle error and violated the defendant's due process rights and privilege against self incrimination. Sullivan, 280 Mont. at 36-37, 927 P.2d at 1040. ¶ 58 Although not entirely clear, Clausell appears to assert there were three separate instances in the present case where the prosecution impermissibly commented on Clausell's post- Miranda silence: during the State's case-in-chief and during opening and closing arguments. The State responds that Clausell has not pointed to any instance in which the prosecution commented on his refusal to give a statement after he received Miranda warnings and, therefore, there is no Doyle error. We agree. ¶ 59 Clausell's first assertion of Doyle error stems from the State's examination of Detective Ronald Cummings. Detective Cummings testified regarding Clausell's formal arrest and the subsequent investigation. The prosecutor asked whether the police department followed an arrest procedure and Detective Cummings responded that Clausell was advised of his rights, invoked his right to an attorney and was not questioned further after that. However, Detective Cummings did not otherwise mention the Miranda warnings in his testimony. Unlike the situations in Doyle and Sullivan, at no point during the direct or redirect examination did either Detective Cummings or the prosecutor suggest or imply that Clausell refused to give a statement after requesting an attorney. Clausell, on the other hand, testified that he tried to make further statements after invoking his right to counsel, but that police refused to talk to him. Indeed, part of Clausell's defense was to draw attention to his willingness to cooperate with police. Thus, not only does the record fail to support Clausell's assertion that the prosecution commented his post- Miranda silence, it does not support his assertion that he was silent after he received Miranda warnings. ¶ 60 Clausell next asserts the State committed Doyle error when, during opening arguments, the prosecutor commented that Clausell did not refer to a gun or a gunshot wound when telling hospital personnel how Trottier was injured. Importantly, Clausell does not suggest the prosecutor commented on his refusal to give a statement. Rather, Clausell asserts the prosecutor commented on his omission of a crucial factthat Trottier had been shotin earlier statements. We have previously observed that the Doyle rule does not apply to language that merely inquires into prior inconsistent statements. Such comment makes no unfair use of silence, because a defendant who voluntarily speaks after receiving Miranda warnings has not been induced to remain silent. State v. Wiman (1989), 236 Mont. 180, 187, 769 P.2d 1200, 1204 (citing Anderson v. Charles (1980), 447 U.S. 404, 408, 100 S.Ct. 2180, 2188, 65 L.Ed.2d 222). The fact that Clausell did not mention a gun in one or more of his statements is not silence and the Doyle rule cannot be applied to preclude the State in the present case from comparing Clausell's inconsistent statements. ¶ 61 Moreover, Clausell gave five different accounts of how Trottier was injured between arriving at the hospital and being arrested and Mirandized. Thus, he had not received Miranda warnings prior to making any of the statements which the State referred to in opening arguments. The Doyle rule is limited to only those instances where the prosecution seeks to impeach a defendant's testimony based on silence after Miranda warnings were given. See Fletcher v. Weir (1982), 455 U.S. 603, 607, 102 S.Ct. 1309, 1311-12, 71 L.Ed.2d 490; and Finley, 276 Mont. at 139, 915 P.2d at 216. Thus, the prosecutor's comment on Clausell's failure to mention a gun or gunshot wound to medical personnel before police arrived was a comment on Clausell's pre- Miranda statements, rather than on post- Miranda silence and, therefore, did not constitute Doyle error. ¶ 62 Finally, Clausell asserts the State committed Doyle error during closing arguments when the prosecution commented that Clausell's version of the facts at trial was inconsistent with the versions he gave earlier to hospital personnel and police, implying that he had spent the seven months between the shooting and trial thinking of a believable story. Again, no construction of the Doyle rule can be read to preclude the State from comparing the inconsistent, voluntary statements of a defendant. See Wiman, 236 Mont. at 187, 769 P.2d at 1204. ¶ 63 On this record, we conclude Clausell has failed to establish that the State improperly commented on his post- Miranda silence pursuant to Doyle. We hold, therefore, that the State did not violate Clausell's right to due process or his privilege against self-incrimination.