Opinion ID: 1763774
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The trial court's curative efforts had little effect

Text: The trial court undertook some action to cure the effect of each of the preserved errors. As noted, the State commented about Brooks' silence during opening arguments. The trial court told the jury to disregard the State's comment: Ladies and gentlemen, the objection of defense counsel has been sustained. The jury will be instructed to disregard the prosecuting attorney's comments regarding the defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent. Those comments will be stricken from the record and should play no part in your consideration of this case. When Lieutenant Thomas commented about Brooks' right to remain silent, the trial court ordered the State to rephrase the question but erroneously did not instruct the jury to disregard the comment about Brooks' right to remain silent. In Dexter, similar curative efforts were made to the jury. Id. at 341. This Court found those efforts to be minimal and determined that because the issue had been raised to the jury, it created an inference of guilt by directing the jury to be suspicious of appellant's lack of response.... Id. The same is true concerning the facts of this case; the curative efforts here were minimal. Although the court instructed the jury to disregard the comment in the State's opening statement, it failed to give a similar instruction in response to Lieutenant Thomas' testimony. The court's efforts had little effect as the trial progressed because the jury had already entertained the State's suggestion that if Brooks was innocent he would have explained his struggle with Cates and his self-defense theory. Moreover, notwithstanding the trial court's rulings, the State continued to call attention to Brooks' post- Miranda silence.