State v. Hunt, 442 P.3d 232

Officers stopped a vehicle suspected in drug dealing; defendant was the front-seat passenger.
A drug dog alerted; officers searched the vehicle and found 221.08 grams of methamphetamine in the rear compartment. Defendant was handcuffed, given Miranda warnings, and arrested.
Sergeant Geist testified that he advised defendant of his rights; defendant "indicated he wanted to talk to [me], but did not want to waive his rights." Defense objected and moved for a mistrial.
The trial court denied the mistrial, held a chambers conference, offered a curative instruction, and the court instructed the jury to disregard the last question and answer.
The jury convicted defendant of possession and delivery of methamphetamine; defendant appealed arguing the testimony and the curative instruction were insufficient and prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant preserved error after requesting/accepting a curative instruction	State: defendant invited error by accepting instruction and not objecting to its sufficiency	Defendant: moving for mistrial before accepting curative instruction preserved the claim	Preserved — court follows Veatch: denial of mistrial preserved despite acceptance of curative instruction
Whether the sergeant's testimony that defendant "did not want to waive his rights" required a mistrial	State: testimony was isolated, ambiguous, and unlikely to create an adverse inference; curative instruction cured any harm	Defendant: statement suggested invocation of right against self-incrimination and invited an adverse inference of guilt; curative instruction was inadequate	Reversed — testimony likely produced an adverse inference and the brief, generic curative instruction was insufficient to "unring the bell."

State v. Veatch, 223 Or. App. 444 (Or. App.) (curative-instruction rule; denial of mistrial preserved even if defendant accepted instruction)
State v. Osorno, 264 Or. App. 742 (Or. App.) (officer's statement that defendant refused to avoid saying "anything incriminating" created an adverse inference; curative instruction inadequate)
State v. White, 303 Or. 333 (Or.) (a bland instruction to forget an improper comment is insufficient to cure prejudice)
State v. Larson, 325 Or. 15 (Or.) (isolated, indirect reference to defendant testifying was not likely to produce adverse inference given context)
State v. Farrar, 309 Or. 132 (Or.) (peripheral reference to defendant's silence during credibility attack did not require mistrial)
State v. Beisser, 258 Or. App. 326 (Or. App.) (isolated ambiguous comment about defendant "refusing to meet" police was not a comment on silence requiring mistrial)
State v. Smallwood, 277 Or. 503 (Or.) (admission of testimony about invocation of rights is usually reversible error when prejudicial)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S.) (custodial-warning doctrine establishing right against self-incrimination)
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S.) (prohibition on prosecutorial comment on defendant's silence under the Fifth Amendment)