State of Minnesota v. Adam John Lilienthal, 889 N.W.2d 780

Lilienthal rented a room to Yorek; disputes over rent and an escalating June 17, 2014 confrontation led to police involvement and attempted eviction steps by Lilienthal.
Later that evening a fire began in Yorek’s bedroom. The State presented forensic and witness evidence that Lilienthal poured gasoline on Yorek and ignited it; Lilienthal claimed Yorek accidentally set the bed on fire during a struggle.
Lilienthal fled the scene; police located and arrested him in St. Louis County. Deputy Feiro did not Mirandize or interrogate Lilienthal during transport; Lilienthal remained silent until Mirandized at the jail.
At trial the State elicited testimony in its case‑in‑chief that Lilienthal said nothing to Deputy Feiro during transport (no contemporaneous objection). The prosecutor later referenced Lilienthal’s post‑arrest, pre‑Miranda silence twice in closing after defense objection.
Lilienthal requested a defense‑of‑dwelling jury instruction; the district court denied it. The jury convicted Lilienthal of first‑degree premeditated murder; he appealed raising Fifth Amendment and jury‑instruction claims.

Issue	Lilienthal's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admission in State’s case‑in‑chief of post‑arrest, pre‑Miranda silence	Use of silence violated Fifth Amendment and required exclusion	No compulsion to speak because Feiro did not interrogate; alternatively, claim forfeited for failure to object	Forfeited at trial; reviewed for plain error and failed — error not "plain" given split authority; no relief
Prosecutor’s references to silence in closing argument	Comments violated Fifth Amendment and warrant new trial	Comments permissible or harmless; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Court assumed possible error but held it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence and limited credibility purpose
Request for defense‑of‑dwelling jury instruction	Evidence supported a dwelling defense (self‑defense of home) because Lilienthal asked Yorek to leave	Yorek retained tenancy rights (tenancy at will), so defense‑of‑dwelling inapplicable	Denial affirmed: tenancy at will had not been terminated in writing per statutory requirements, so defense not available

State v. Borg, 806 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 2011) (discusses when pre‑arrest silence implicates Fifth Amendment).
State v. Jones, 753 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 2008) (pre‑arrest silence claim not plain error where law unsettled).
State v. Beaulieu, 859 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 2015) (explains forfeiture doctrine for unobjected‑to trial errors).
State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1998) (sets plain‑error three‑prong test).
State v. Strommen, 648 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. 2002) (error is "plain" if clear or obvious).
State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2006) (error contravenes case law, rule, or standard).
State v. Jackson, 714 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. 2006) (plainness measured at time of appeal).
Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (U.S. 2013) (plurality guidance on invoking Fifth Amendment for pre‑arrest silence).
State v. Hare, 575 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1998) (defense‑of‑dwelling unavailable when victim has rights to dwelling).
State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 2001) (tenancy confers rights that bar dwelling defense).
State v. Dahlin, 695 N.W.2d 588 (Minn. 2005) (party requesting instruction entitled to it if supported by evidence).