Opinion ID: 1897744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the prosecution impermissibly introduced evidence of appellant's post-arrest silence following receipt of his miranda warnings.

Text: Appellant contends that, upon the direct examination of the county sheriff by the prosecutor, in establishing that appellant was given his Miranda warnings, the prosecutor then immediately asked the sheriff: Q. Did he discuss the case with you after you had given him the warning? A. No, he did not. Appellant asserts that this question and answer constituted an impermissible comment on appellant's post-arrest silence. Here, again, the appellant made no objection to the question or answer before the lower court and the matter is not preserved for review by this Court. Furthermore, we see no harm or prejudice sustained by the appellant from the question and answer, particularly, since the appellant testified in his own behalf and relied upon self-defense.