State v. VanWinkle
229 Ariz. 233
| Ariz. | 2012Background
- VanWinkle shot Mike in the head; Gerry witnessed, disarmed him; Cory detained VanWinkle while Joel called 911; Cory restrained VanWinkle on the balcony.
- Cory identified VanWinkle as the shooter to police; VanWinkle remained silent in response.
- At trial, the State admitted evidence of VanWinkle's silence and commented on it; defense objected on Fifth Amendment grounds.
- The jury found VanWinkle guilty on all charges; the Court of Appeals assumed custody during Cory's accusation but ruled Miranda did not apply due to no police interrogation.
- Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve a statewide issue regarding use of post-custody, pre-Miranda silence.
- The Court held that post-custody, pre-Miranda silence is inadmissible as evidence of guilt and that prosecutorial comment on such silence violates the Fifth Amendment; however, the convictions were affirmed as harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-custody, pre-Miranda silence may be used as evidence of guilt | State—silence may be admissible as tacit admission. | VanWinkle—violates Fifth Amendment to use silence against him. | Silence is inadmissible; Fifth Amendment violated. |
| Does Miranda prohibit use of post-custody silence not in response to interrogation | State—Miranda not triggered absent interrogation. | VanWinkle—Miranda protections extend to this context | Miranda not violated here; issue centers on Fifth Amendment admissibility. |
| Whether the error was harmless given other evidence | State—overwhelming consistent testimony establishes guilt regardless of silence. | VanWinkle—error could have affected verdict. | Harmless error; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Saiz, 103 Ariz. 567 (Ariz. 1968) (tacit admission rule for statements heard and not answered)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (silence after arrest and warnings may not be used against defendant)
- Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1982) (post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence may be used for impeachment if defendant testifies)
- Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1986) (post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence cannot be used in case-in-chief)
- Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (U.S. 1980) (prosecution may use pre-arrest silence for impeachment)
- State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116 (Ariz. 1994) (addressed remarks on pre-Miranda silence; dictum about comment on pre-Miranda silence)
- Velarde-Gomez, 269 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2001) (custody triggers right to silence; warnings not genesis of right)
- United States v. Moore, 104 F.3d 377 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence not tied to interrogation; Fifth Amendment protection)