Opinion ID: 1771774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 35

Heading: whether it was improper and reversible error for the district attorney to inquire of the defendant as to his post-miranda silence?

Text: ś 74. Puckett argues the prosecution committed reversible error during cross-examination by improperly inquiring into the defendant's post- Miranda silence. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Puckett did not raise an objection to these questions at trial [8] or raise this issue in his Motion for New Trial. However, Puckett now argues this issue should not be subject to the procedural bar, but should be considered by this Court under the plain or obvious error rule. Puckett cites Williams v. State, 445 So.2d 798 (Miss.1984) in support of his contention that this Court should consider this issue even though it was not raised before the lower court. [9] Puckett relies on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), and this Court's decisions in Quick v. State, 569 So.2d 1197 (Miss.1990) and Johnson v. State, 596 So.2d 865 (Miss. 1992) as authority for his argument that the prosecution erred by questioning Puckett about his post- Miranda silence. ś 75. Here, testimony from several law enforcement personnel was offered to show Puckett made voluntary statements at the time of his arrest and after his arrest. Specifically, Sheriff Billy Magee testified that he was present at the time of Puckett's apprehension and arrest which was in close proximity to Puckett's mother's house. Sheriff Magee testified that at the time of his arrest, Puckett stated to his mother [t]his is a lot of law enforcement for somebody who just committed a burglary. In addition, Michael Riels, a Forrest County Sheriff's Office investigator, testified that upon Puckett's arrival at the Forrest County Regional Jail, sometime between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., he read Puckett his Miranda rights. Investigator Riels indicated at that point in time he did not attempt to take a statement from Puckett, but that Puckett did make voluntary statements regarding his apprehension. Specifically, Riels stated, A. (Riels) At that time he was telling me that the way he was caught or apprehended was through the use of a helicopter. He was kind of upset with himself that he didn't lay still enough in the woods and that the reason he came on out was because a helicopter hadâ he knew that he had been spotted, so he might as well come on out. Q. ( Jones) Was there anything else said at that time? A. (Riels) At that time I asked him if he got cold staying in the woods for a couple of days, was what I was referring to, how he survived out there for a couple of days, and at that time he told me that he was an Eagle Scout, and that he had picked cotton and put it in his boots to keep his feet warm, that he knew what roots to eat, and that the first night being out he stayed in a field and pulled two bales of hay together and stayed between those bales of hay, and the next night he slept in a loft of a barn. ś 76. Thereafter, Eddie Clark, Forrest County Deputy Sheriff, testified that at approximately 10:00 p.m., after advising Puckett of his Miranda rights, he interviewed Puckett at the Forrest County Jail. Deputy Sheriff Clark testified that Puckett made the following voluntary statements, A. (Clark) He stated it was a lot of police officers looking for someone that had just committed burglary, and he stated that his vehicle was in the wooded area where we had located it at because it had ran hot and he parked it there.     Q. (Jones) And was thatâ that was the extent of what he said to you on that occasion? A. (Clark) He stated he went to the residence to break into it, to steal money to pay a truck note. Q. (Jones) Okay. Did he denyâ did he admit or deny any involvement with the actual killing of the lady? A. (Clark) He said he hasn't killed anyone and didn't want to have any more conversation until he had an attorney present. ś 77. Puckett elected to take the stand in his own defense and testified as to the facts as previously indicated in the Statement of Facts. During Puckett's testimony, the prosecution asked Puckett why he never reported to anyone that he had just witnessed a man brutally beat his wife to death. Puckett testified that he did not go to his mother's house and call the police because his mother's car was not at the house when he arrived there. He testified that he did not go to the house where he had been living with Buck Hinton and his wife and report what he had witnessed because they were a long ways from his mother's house. He also testified that he did not go to the police department or Sheriff's office to report the incident because he did not know where they were located. This line of questioning is obviously pre- Miranda and thus Puckett does not allege any error with regards thereto. ś 78. However, Puckett contends that the prosecution committed reversible error in regards to the following three series of questions. Q. (Jones) Who is the first person you told that story to? A. (Puckett) My lawyer. Q. (Jones) And when was that? A. (Puckett) I don't have the date. Q. (Jones) And if you're an innocent man, I mean, they're telling you to shut up an don't tell anybody? A. (Puckett) That's what my momma said. Q. (Jones) And you're innocent, you say? A. (Puckett) Yes, sir. Q. (Jones) Well, I know one thing; you haven't told anybody other than your mother and your lawyer on God's earth until today, have you? A. (Puckett) I was told to keep quiet. Q. (Jones) Keep quiet. An innocent man, who'd done nothing and witnessed a murder? They told you to keep quiet? A. (Puckett) Yes, sir. Q. (Jones) Why did they do that? A. (Puckett) That was my mother and my lawyer, and that's what they instructed me to do. ś 79. The first series of questions regarding to whom Puckett first told his story cannot positively be identified as post- Miranda. Because Puckett hid out in the woods for two (2) days prior to his arrest, this question very well could have been asked to ascertain whether Puckett had told his story to anyone prior to his arrest. However, the second and third series of questions are pertaining to what Puckett related after his arrest. Therefore, in light of Puckett's contention that this constitutes plain error, we will review this line of questioning both with regards to the procedural bar asserted by the State as well as on the merits.