State v. Silva, 141 A.3d 916

Defendant Cordaryl Silva was convicted by a jury of murder for fatally shooting Javon Zimmerman in a bar parking lot; sentence 50 years plus 10 years special parole. Appeal challenges pretrial/trial rulings.
On day one of trial the defendant repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with appointed counsel Hopkins and, after voir dire and after trial had begun, orally sought to represent himself.
The trial court denied the midtrial Faretta request after canvassing the reasons, finding counsel competent and concluding the defendant’s reasons (disputes over trial strategy and proposed questions/witnesses) did not justify permitting self-representation.
Prosecutor introduced testimony about a post-arrest, post-Miranda police interview in which Silva answered many questions but did not verbally answer the direct question, "Did you kill Javon Zimmerman?"; officer described nonverbal shrug/blank stare and continued questioning.
During cross-examination and closing the prosecutor argued the defendant’s silence/demeanor at the interview implied guilt; defendant claimed this violated Doyle/Miranda-derived Fifth Amendment protections.
Appellate court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying the untimely self-representation request, and no Doyle violation occurred because defendant had not invoked a right to remain silent (he was selectively silent while answering other questions).

Issue	State's Argument	Silva's Argument	Held
Whether court abused discretion by denying midtrial self-representation request	Request was either not clear earlier and, when clear, untimely; court properly weighed Flanagan factors and found no sufficient reason to disrupt trial	Denial violated Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to self-representation; request was clear and court focused on frivolous reasons rather than likely delay/disruption	Denial affirmed: defendant made a clear request only after trial began; court properly applied Flanagan factors, found counsel competent and defendant’s reasons unpersuasive, so no abuse of discretion
Whether prosecutor’s use of defendant’s post-Miranda silence and demeanor to imply guilt violated Doyle/Miranda	No Doyle violation because defendant did not invoke his right to remain silent; he answered many questions before and after and was selectively silent; any comment was harmless	Prosecutor’s references to defendant’s refusal to answer the crucial question impermissibly used post-Miranda silence to impeach and implied guilt, violating Fifth Amendment	No Doyle violation: defendant’s selective silence did not amount to invocation of right to remain silent; use of his nonresponse was permissible and not reversible error

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (constitutional right to self-representation when knowingly and intelligently waived counsel)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (using post-Miranda silence to imply guilt violates due process)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial warnings protecting Fifth Amendment rights)
State v. Flanagan, 293 Conn. 406 (Conn. 2009) (balancing test for untimely midtrial Faretta requests)
State v. Pires, 310 Conn. 222 (Conn. 2013) (clarifies requirement of clear and unequivocal request and court duties)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (standard for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Taft, 25 Conn. App. 149 (Conn. App. 1991) (selective post-Miranda silence not an invocation of the right to remain silent)
State v. Morrill, 197 Conn. 507 (Conn. 1985) (refusal to answer accusatory questions is a Doyle violation)
State v. Montgomery, 254 Conn. 694 (Conn. 2000) (defendant who stopped interview clearly invoked right to remain silent; Doyle analysis)