Lupfer v. State
21 A.3d 1080
Md.2011Background
- Lupfer allegedly shot and killed Yarbray in Cecil County, MD (June 16, 2007) with disputed accounts of events leading to the shooting.
- Lupfer testified he fled to New Jersey after the shooting and planned to return to Maryland to turn himself in; he claimed intent to sleep and then speak with police.
- After Lupfer was arrested, he invoked his right to silence and asked for an attorney; the State elicited testimony about his post-arrest silence.
- The Court of Special Appeals held post-arrest, post-Miranda silence admissible to rebut an impression of cooperation under the fair response doctrine.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to review the admissibility and reversed, remanding for a new trial, holding silence could not be used to impeach absent door-opening by Lupfer.
- The decision centers on Maryland evidentiary rules and constitutional principles governing post-arrest silence and the fair response doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-arrest, post-Miranda silence is admissible | Lupfer opened the door to admissibility | State cannot admit silence absent door-opening | Not admissible when door not opened by Lupfer |
| Whether Lupfer opened the door to fair response evidence | Testimony pre-arrest about intent to cooperate created door | Pre-arrest statements do not open door to post-arrest silence | Door not opened; post-arrest silence inadmissible under Rule 5-403 |
| Whether any error was harmless | Admission could influence verdict | Harmless beyond reasonable doubt | Not harmless beyond reasonable doubt; reversible error |
| Role of Article 22 vs. Fifth Amendment | Maryland Article 22 mirrors Fifth Amendment protection | State law may provide broader allowance | Maryland approach governs evidentiary ruling; constitutional issue not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (prosecution cannot use post-arrest silence to impeach exculpatory story; implicit protection from penalization of silence)
- United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25 (1988) (fair response when defendant or counsel claims government prevented explanation of case)
- United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171 (1975) (post-arrest silence generally ambiguous with substantial prejudice and limited probative value)
- Grier v. State, 351 Md. 241 (1998) (post-arrest silence inadmissible; opened the door/fair response analyzed; emphasized prejudice and evidentiary rule separation)
- Dupree v. State, 352 Md. 314 (1998) (prohibition on eliciting that police read Miranda rights; issues of opening door and constitutional basis clarified)
- Robinson v. State, 447 Md. 231 (1980) (early articulation of pre-arrest vs post-arrest silence; influence on fair response doctrine)