Opinion ID: 2607856
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: prosecution comments on defendant's pre-trial silence

Text: Defendant claims that the prosecution made improper comments pertaining to her decision to exercise her constitutional right to remain silent in three separate instances: questions concerning a purported prior inconsistent statement on life insurance forms she had completed; questions on cross-examination of defendant concerning the fact that she remained silent and did not testify until she had had a chance to hear all of the State's evidence; and questions regarding her failure to tell close family members that she shot her husband.
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.
Defendant also objects to the prosecutor's questioning defendant about whether she had heard all of the State's evidence before testifying. Defendant argues that these questions comprise an improper comment on her right to remain silent because they would tend to lead the jury to incorrectly infer that defendant had an affirmative duty to reveal her defense before the presentation of her case. The State disagrees and claims that the question merely implies that, having heard all of the evidence, defendant is in a good position to conform her story to what the jury has already heard. When a defendant waives her right to remain silent and takes the stand in her own defense, she subjects herself to cross-examination on the credibility of her testimony. State v. Robinson, 157 N.J. Super. 118, 384 A.2d 569, certif. denied, 77 N.J. 484, 391 A.2d 498 (1978). The prosecutor's question as to whether defendant had heard the previous testimony was a proper inquiry into the credibility of her testimony. State v. Hoxsie, 101 N.M. 7, 677 P.2d 620 (1984).
The final instance complained of by defendant pertaining to her right to remain silent relates to the prosecutor's questions concerning whether she told anyone, before the trial, that she had shot decedent. This line of questioning was clearly a comment on defendant's pre-trial silence which followed her receipt of Miranda warnings. The question before us is whether this comment is impermissible under U.S. Const. amend. V, XIV, or N.M. Const. art. II, Section 15. Comments on a defendant's silence instituted by the State which follow Miranda warnings have an intolerable prejudicial impact requiring reversal, unless the defendant's silence has a significant probative value. United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975); State v. Baca, 89 N.M. 204, 549 P.2d 282 (1976); State v. Lara, 88 N.M. 233, 539 P.2d 623 (Ct.App. 1975). Comment of this type constitutes plain error. NMSA 1978, Evid.R. 103(d) (Repl.Pamp. 1983); State v. Ramirez, 98 N.M. 268, 648 P.2d 307 (1982). The State argues that the right to remain silent applies only to silence in the context of custodial interrogation. We refuse to accept such a narrow interpretation of this constitutional right. The important determination to be made on this issue is whether the silence has any probative value. In United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975), the United States Supreme Court addressed the propriety of using a defendant's silence, after Miranda warnings had been given, for purposes of impeachment. In Hale, the Court stated, In most circumstances silence is so ambiguous that it is of little probative force. Id. at 176, 95 S.Ct. at 2136. The Court noted that there was particularly little value in the silence of one who has been given Miranda warnings. The Court also pointed out that there is a high danger, that the jury is likely to assign much more weight to the defendant's previous silence than is warranted. Id. at 180, 95 S.Ct. at 2138. In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 2245, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), under a similar fact pattern, the Court held that the use for impeachment purposes of petitioners' silence    after receiving Miranda warnings, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The circumstances in Hale and Doyle were very similar to those in the case before us. In each case the defendant presented exculpatory testimony at trial which had not been presented at any earlier time. In each case the prosecution argued that the failure to relate the exculpatory facts to someone at an earlier time supported a theory of recent fabrication, and was therefore probative. The Court in Hale and Doyle rejected this argument, primarily on the grounds that silence which follows official notification of the constitutional right to remain silent is very ambiguous and therefore is not highly probative. One important difference between this case and Hale and Doyle is that defendant in this case did not tell either her daughters or the police what had happened. There is some probative value in defendant's silence because it is more likely that a suspect in a crime will tell family members, as opposed to police, about the surrounding circumstances of the act. However, defendant is not under any compulsion to divulge information to family members. The value of the failure to tell family members is especially weak in this case because there is evidence that emotional trauma limited defendant's ability to speak. Also, there is evidence that the police were treating defendant as a suspect and were questioning family members about the homicide. Notwithstanding the limited value of defendant's failure to tell her daughters that she shot decedent, the prosecutor directly commented on defendant's post- Miranda, post-arrest silence when he asked, [I]sn't it a fact that you didn't tell them [your family] anything so that I couldn't learn about it [your story] in October when I called them to the witness stand? This statement alone constitutes grounds for reversal of defendant's conviction. State v. Ramirez, 98 N.M. 268, 648 P.2d 307 (1982); State v. Lara, 88 N.M. 233, 539 P.2d 623 (Ct.App. 1975). However, the prosecutor compounded the error by repeatedly arguing this improper inference before the jury in closing arguments. Defendant is not required to reveal her theory of defense to the prosecution before trial and any inference that she should have done so is highly improper. The State's reliance on Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980), to support the proposition that pre-arrest silence is probative for impeachment purposes is misdirected because that case involved a defendant's silence before Miranda warnings were given. We reverse on this issue. We address the remaining points of error individually in order to assess the degree, if any, to which each contributed to the accumulation of error which also requires reversal in this case.