Opinion ID: 903133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Silence Post-Miranda Warning

Text: Mr. Bruffey’s initial assignment of error is that the prosecution improperly solicited trial testimony that commented on his silence post-Miranda warning. Moreover, Mr. Bruffey asserts that his counsel’s failure to object to the statements was plain error. The State, conversely, asserts that none of the statements of which Mr. Bruffey complains amounted to an improper reference to his silence. Both Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provide a constitutional right to remain silent. It is reversible error for the State to cross-examine a defendant in regard to his pre-trial silence or to comment on the defendant’s silence to the jury. State v. Boyd, 160 W. Va. 234, 233 S.E.2d 710 (1977). See also State v. Fortner, 150 W. Va. 571, 148 S.E.2d 669 (1966), overruled on other grounds. Defendants are presumed innocent at trial, “[s]o the law having brought the prisoner into court against his will, [must] not permit his silence to be treated or used as evidence against him.” State v. Taylor, 57 W. Va. 228, 50 S.E. 247 (1905). 8 Mr. Bruffey argues that, during the State’s opening statement, it made reference to his pre-trial silence by commenting, “[o]n another occasion, after another Miranda warning was given, Sergeant Droppleman also was told by [Mr. Bruffey], ‘I think I should wait to talk to you about this,’ and said nothing further.” Then, during the State’s case-in-chief, the prosecutor solicited the following response from Sergeant Droppleman, “[W]e didn’t take a written statement. [Mr. Bruffey] didn’t want to provide one, which is his right.” Thereafter, the prosecutor asked Sergeant Droppleman, “Did [Mr. Bruffey] make any statement to you on the occasion after being advised of his rights?” Sergeant Droppleman replied: Yes. On October 13th 2010, I located [Mr. Bruffey] at Ray’s Texaco, at which point in time I took him into custody . . . . I read his Miranda rights at the counter and then took him out. We drove to the office. And then after I got him to the office before processing, I filled out another Miranda form, a written form, he did initial portions of that form, but decided not to sign it. He didn’t want to sign a waiver. He didn’t want to waive his rights and provide a written statement to me at that time. As previously noted, Mr. Bruffey invites this Court to invoke the plain error doctrine because his counsel failed to object to the alleged post-Miranda silence comments. The plain error doctrine is set forth in Syllabus point 7 of State v. Miller, 194 W. Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995), which states: “To trigger application of the ‘plain error’ doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously 9 affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” We find that, under the facts of the present case, the first prong of the test has not been satisfied. That is, there was no error, as established by a full reading of the record. The prosecution’s and Sergeant Droppleman’s brief references to Mr. Bruffey’s Miranda warnings were not made to call attention to Mr. Bruffey’s pre-trial silence but rather to properly lay the foundation for the admission of Mr. Bruffey’s inculpatory statements that he made after he was read his Miranda warnings. The inculpatory statements were that he “had been unemployed and out of work for a number of months,” and “I’m going to jail for a long time.” The first statement was relevant because the bank robber had told the teller that he had lost his job. The second statement was relevant as a tacit admission of guilt. We agree with Mr. Bruffey that it would have been improper for the State to suggest that his silence is indicative of guilt. Importantly, the State did not comment on Mr. Bruffey’s silence. Rather, the State merely directed the jury’s attention to Mr. Bruffey’s inculpatory statements. For these reasons, petitioner’s first assignment of error is without merit. 10