State v. McCallie, 369 P.3d 103

After drinking and an argument, McCallie shot an acquaintance (Victim) in the abdomen; Victim survived. McCallie claimed the shooting was accidental or self-defense; the jury convicted him of third-degree aggravated assault and acquitted him of firearm discharge.
At arrest, McCallie behaved belligerently and made statements to officers like “Why am I here?” and “You woke me up,” after receiving Miranda warnings; he did not assert a self-defense explanation then.
The prosecutor did not elicit the content of McCallie’s interview at trial but played recorded jailhouse calls in which McCallie asked others to say the shooting was an accident and later said he would "go a different direction" and claim self-defense.
In closing, the prosecutor argued McCallie’s story "evolved," and referenced McCallie’s pretrial statements (e.g., “Why am I here? … You woke me up”), implying he did not assert self-defense earlier—defense objected as an impermissible comment on silence.
The trial court denied mistrial and new-trial motions; McCallie moved for directed verdict on sufficiency grounds and was denied. He appealed, arguing (1) Doyle/Miranda-based error from prosecutor’s comment on post-arrest silence and (2) insufficiency of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (McCallie)	Held
1. Whether prosecutor impermissibly commented on defendant’s post-Miranda silence	Prosecutor: he argued only that McCallie’s trial testimony was inconsistent with prior statements; not a punishment of Miranda silence	McCallie: prosecutor’s closing argued he invented self-defense later because he didn’t give that explanation at his police interview, violating Doyle/Miranda	Court: comment violated Doyle (constitutional error) but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and conviction affirmed
2. Whether evidence was insufficient for aggravated assault conviction	State: evidence (Victim’s testimony, jail calls, defendant’s trial testimony) supported aggravated assault	McCallie: Victim’s extreme intoxication (BAC .31) made his memory unreliable; insufficiency entitles acquittal	Court: viewing all evidence in the record, sufficient evidence supported conviction; directed verdict denial affirmed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes right to Miranda warnings)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (post-Miranda silence cannot be used to impeach due process violation)
Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404 (distinguishes impeachment with prior inconsistent statements about the crime from impermissible comment on silence)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (Fifth Amendment invocation must be unambiguous for suspects to cut off questioning)
Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (plurality discussion distinguishing Fifth Amendment invocation and Doyle due-process protection)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard for constitutional error)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (harmless-error analysis for improper impeachment)