Opinion ID: 2576428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Testimony relating to Sampson's invocation of Fifth Amendment rights

Text: During trial, Sampson brought a motion for a mistrial based upon the testimony of Detective Castaneda discussing Sampson's invocation of the right to remain silent and to have an attorney. Detective Castaneda testified that when he arrived at the scene of the crime, he was informed that Sampson had already been detained in a patrol car and that officers and detectives were not speaking with Sampson because he had requested an attorney. The State apologized for the testimony, argued that it had not elicited the testimony, and offered a curative instruction. Sampson refused the instruction. The district court admitted that the comments were error but determined the error to be harmless and denied Sampson's motion for a mistrial. We agree with the district court that this testimony was error and that such error was harmless. Whether a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's invocation of her Fifth Amendment rights is reversible error depends on whether `the language used was manifestly intended to be or was of such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be comment on the defendant's [assertion of her Fifth Amendment rights].' [15] Also, comments concerning the invocation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights are only unconstitutional when they are designed to draw a meaning from the silence. [16] When determining the intended meaning, we view these improper prosecutorial comments in context, and a criminal conviction should not be lightly overturned on the basis of the comments alone. [17] The same is true for brief testimonial comments. As discussed, the test for whether a conviction must be overturned is whether there was more than a mere passing reference to the invocation of Fifth Amendment rights. [18] We conclude that Detective Castaneda's statement was merely a passing reference. Detective Castaneda's statement was unsolicited by the State, and he testified to the above in response to questions about what he found when he arrived at the scene of the crime and whether he made any contact with the suspect at that time. Thus, the context of his statement was not designed to draw a meaning from silence and amounted to harmless error.