Court Opinion

ID: 9551663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:56:53.859314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:21.290103
License: Public Domain

BUSSEY, Judge,
dissenting:
The rule enunciated in Doyle, supra, has no application in the instant case. From a review of the record, it appears that after the defendant had been detained by Security Officer Peacock, he was asked why he took the radio without paying for it and responded that, “I don’t know.” Furthermore, when he was advised that the police had been summoned, the defendant requested to speak with the Store Manager stating, “. .. I want to ask him if I can páy for it and never come back to the store.”
Testifying in his own behalf, the defendant denied any intention to steal, admitted that he had made a statement to Security Officer Peacock, but maintained that he had told him that he had no intention to steal the radio, but had secured it so that it could be purchased by his brother (who was in the military) who was waiting outside the store. When questioned as to whether or not he had informed Officer Paulson, the arresting officer, that his brother was with him, he stated that he did not remember what he had said to the officer at that time. Later, the defendant stated that he had probably told the officer that he had not done it. This hardly appears to be the exercise of a right to remain silent as contemplated in Doyle.
Even assuming however, that the record would support such a conclusion, (which I do not concede) I am of the opinion that the overwhelming evidence of the guilt of the defendant, if submitted to another jury, *46could only result in the same verdict as was rendered herein. In sum, the error if any was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. I would affirm the conviction.