Background

• Schaff was convicted by jury of felony DUI after police found her in a remote Billings area with the vehicle and she refused both breath testing and field sobriety tests.
• Schaff was read Miranda rights at the jail after arrest, requested an attorney, and the investigation effectively ceased at that point; a DUI processing videotape was admitted at trial to show her state of mind and confusion.
• Schaff testified that she had been stalked by a man named Slyder, claimed she drank wine in the car, and asserted she was in Laurel, not Billings, when found.
• The State presented the officers’ testimony about what Schaff said at the scene and during DUI processing, and highlighted inconsistencies with her later trial testimony.
• The defense argued the prosecutor impermissibly commented on Schaff’s post-Miranda silence to imply guilt, while Schaff acknowledged drinking but claimed fear and stalking issues were relevant.
• The District Court and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding no due process violation from post-Miranda silence and that pre-Miranda statements could be used to impeach a testifying defendant.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1976) (prohibition on using post-Miranda silence to impeach exculpatory explanations)
• State v. Tadewaldt, 357 Mont. 208 (Mont. 2010) (pre-Miranda statements may be used to impeach trial testimony; post-Miranda silence not implied guilt)
• State v. Clausell, 22 P.3d 1111 (Mont. 2001) (permissible to use inconsistent statements; silent periods not automatically burdened)
• State v. Graves, 901 P.2d 549 (Mont. 1995) (pre-Miranda statements can be used to expose false trial testimony)
• State v. Godfrey, 322 Mont. 254 (Mont. 2004) (pre- vs post-Miranda statements distinction in impeachment analysis)