Court Opinion

ID: 9671646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:41:07.653316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:11.247210
License: Public Domain

Archer, J.
(dissenting). I concur with Justice Cavanagh’s dissenting opinion.
The majority concludes that evidence of a defendant’s prearrest silence is admissible for purposes *45of impeachment. I disagree. However, if such evidence is introduced into the record, the following safeguards must be followed by the trial court to avoid misuse of defendant’s prearrest silence.
The trial court must weigh the probative value of admitting evidence of defendant’s prearrest silence against any prejudicial effect. The prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value of admitting the evidence whenever the trial court determines that it would not have been natural for the defendant to come forward during the time period in which the prosecutor says the silence impairs the credibility of the trial testimony. This determination is to be made on a case-by-case basis.
The evidence of defendant’s prearrest silence is not admissible to show defendant’s guilt. If the evidence is admitted at all, pursuant to the majority’s decision, it should only be admitted for impeachment purposes. The trial court should instruct the jury accordingly when the prosecutor is allowed to present the evidence to the jury.
Levin, J., concurred with Archer, J.