Opinion ID: 896251
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comment on Defendant's Silence

Text: [¶ 15] Hill claims reversible error occurred at trial when Officer Gary Anderson commented on Hill's decision to remain silent. Detective Anderson testified during Hill's case-in-chief, and the comments by Detective Anderson to which Hill now objects occurred during questioning by Hill's attorney: Q What did you do to investigate this case? A I talked to the complainant, I talked to the grandparents, I talked to, like I said, Betty [sic] Anderson. I tried to talk to your client, but you told me I couldn't talk to him. Q Doesn't he have a right not to talk to you, though? A Yeah. But that's what I did. You asked me what I done, and that's what I done.      Q Okay. Did you check it out, the places where they supposedly had sex, like thethe Bronco? Did you check the Bronco out? A No. Because, like I stated, you said I couldn't talk to your client. Q You can look at a Bronco, can't you? I said you couldn't talk to my client? A Yeah, you did. Q I did? A Yeah. I called you on the phone, I don't remember the date, but I asked you if I could talk to your client, and you said no. [¶ 16] When a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by choosing to remain silent, it is a violation of the defendant's due process rights to use his silence for impeachment. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 2245, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). An officer's testimony, in response to a question from the prosecutor, that the defendant has invoked the Fifth Amendment is an improper comment on the defendant's right to remain silent and is constitutional error which may be reviewed on appeal even though not objected to at the time of trial. State v. Schneider, 270 N.W.2d 787, 792 (N.D.1978). [¶ 17] In State v. Janda, 397 N.W.2d 59, 66 (N.D.1986), we held a prosecutor's use of a defendant's post-arrest silence is error and the following factors, among others, are appropriate to consider in determining whether the error was harmless: 1. The use to which the prosecution puts the postarrest silence. 2. Who elected to pursue the line of questioning. 3. The quantum of other evidence indicative of guilt. 4. The intensity and frequency of the reference. 5. The availability to the trial judge of an opportunity to grant a motion for mistrial or to give curative instructions. [¶ 18] Having considered these relevant factors, we conclude Detective Anderson's comments did not constitute reversible error. The comments were invited during questioning by Hill's attorney, not the prosecutor. Hill's attorney asked the detective if he had checked out the Bronco, which allegedly had been used by the defendant during one of the sexual acts. The detective responded he had not because you said I couldn't talk to your client. Hill's attorney then repeats the statement in asking, I said you couldn't talk to my client? to which the detective responded, Yeah. The detective's statements only indirectly, if it all, refer to the defendant's silence. Fairly interpreted, the detective testified he did not seek Hill to search the Bronco because Hill's attorney told him not to talk with Hill. The detective's answers were a direct comment upon the attorney's instructions, but constituted, at most, an oblique and indirect reference to Hill's right to remain silent. [¶ 19] Furthermore, the prosecutor neither solicited the detective's comments nor made any use of them during the trial. The line of questioning was pursued entirely by Hill's own attorney, and the detective's comment was very brief. [¶ 20] There is also considerable evidence of Hill's guilt. There is corroborating evidence to the complainant's testimony Hill committed the charged sexual acts against her. A physician testified the complainant's physical condition is consistent with these sexual acts having been committed. The testimony of the complainant's uncle about dates on which the victim was available for the defendant to commit these acts, also corroborated the complainant's testimony. The record also contains evidence the defendant admitted to others having committed certain sexual acts with the complainant. The defendant, while testifying at the trial, admitted making the statement, I'm having to resort to have people ... lie for me now, just to, you know, just to get out of it. [¶ 21] Hill's counsel moved for a mistrial based on the detective's unsolicited comments about Hill's silence. However, the trial court denied the motion, because the comments were invited by Hill's attorney. See State v. Robideaux, 493 N.W.2d 210, 214 (N.D.1992) (a defendant cannot complain of invited error); see also State v. Austin, 520 N.W.2d 564, 570 (N.D.1994) (defendant cannot complain about error invited upon the court). Having reviewed the record and evaluated the relevant factors, we conclude Detective Anderson's comments did not constitute reversible error.