Opinion ID: 2644969
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Billy Dale Green’s Testimony

Text: For his fifth point on appeal, Billy asserts that the circuit court erred when it did not grant a mistrial during his own testimony during cross-examination. Billy asserts that during his cross-examination the State violated Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), and used Billy’s right to silence against him in violation of Doyle. At issue is the following colloquy: PROSECUTOR: Now, you know that Chad was tried in September of 2011, right? BILLY: Yes, sir. PROSECUTOR: So who did you contact even after Chad’s trial when you knew exactly . . . DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Objection. Can we approach your honor? The circuit court sustained the objection to the question, denied the motion for mistrial and gave the jury a cautionary instruction. Billy objected to a cautionary instruction and asserted that it would not cure the alleged error. The circuit court overruled the objection and gave the following instruction: 32 Cite as 2013 Ark. 497 [T]he last question that was asked, who did you contact then after Chad’s trial, being objected to, the court has sustained the objection and is instructing you to disregard that utterance . . . in rendering your decision. The Court in Doyle held that “the use for impeachment purposes of petitioners’ silence, at the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 619. This court similarly held in Jarreau v. State, 291 Ark. 60, 722 S.W.2d 565 (1987), and in Clark v. State, 256 Ark. 658, 509 S.W.2d 812 (1974). In Holden v. State, 290 Ark. 458, 462, 721 S.W.2d 614, 616 (1986) we stated that the “issue . . . is whether [the statement] was a comment on the right of a defendant to remain silent.” We concluded that the case was not exactly the same as in Doyle. “There was no direct reference by the State to the defendant’s silence or emphasis that the defendant refused to make a statement, which is the error addressed in Doyle.” Id., 721 S.W.2d at 616. As stated previously, a mistrial is an extreme and drastic remedy to be resorted to only when there has been an error so prejudicial that justice cannot be served by continuing the trial. Russell v. State, 306 Ark. 436, 815 S.W.2d 929 (1991). Because the record fails to demonstrate that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Billy’s motion for mistrial on this point, we affirm the circuit court on Billy’s fifth point on appeal.