Court Opinion

ID: 9687681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:42:02.596503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:29.991248
License: Public Domain

Brickley, J.
(concurring). The record before us has been sufficiently developed for the Court to rule on whether the prosecutor’s question on cross-examination was in fact error. On this issue I agree with Justice Levin that the question itself constituted error because it was an attempt by the prosecutor to use defendant’s postarrest, post-Miranda silence for impeachment.
However, I concur in the result reached by Justice Boyle because defendant waived any claim of error. I join in her analysis to the extent that defendant’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s question on cross-examination pointing to a post-Miranda period waived any claim of error as to the question posed. I therefore also agree with Justice Boyle’s analysis regarding admissibility of defendant’s responses and further questioning resulting therefrom.