Utah Court of Appeals
Can prosecutors use testimony about a defendant's silence against them at trial? State v. Morrison Explained
Summary
Michael Morrison was convicted of drug and weapon violations after police testimony described his girlfriend telling him to remain silent during questioning. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that testimony about a defendant’s post-Miranda silence violated constitutional protections and prejudiced the jury.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a fundamental constitutional protection in State v. Morrison, clarifying when testimony about a defendant’s invocation of Miranda rights becomes grounds for reversal.
Background and Facts
Michael Morrison faced drug and weapon charges following a 1995 police raid at his Layton home. During the investigation, officers found Morrison sleeping near drugs, paraphernalia, and a loaded .357 Magnum revolver with his parole officer’s name inscribed on a bullet. After receiving Miranda warnings, Morrison initially indicated willingness to answer questions but remained silent after his girlfriend, Jill Crittenden, told him to “shut up.”
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether prosecutors violated Morrison’s constitutional rights by introducing testimony describing his decision to invoke his right to remain silent. Both a police officer and Crittenden testified about Morrison’s silence following legal advice, with no objection from defense counsel and no curative jury instruction from the trial court.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
Judge Pamela Greenwood, writing for a unanimous panel, found clear constitutional error. The court emphasized the “well-established rule prohibiting prosecutors from eliciting testimony of a defendant’s post-Miranda silence.” The testimony created a clear implication that Morrison “might have given incriminating information, but for Crittenden’s entreaty to remain silent.” Despite the strong evidence against Morrison, the court found the error prejudicial because the conviction required refuting Morrison’s credibility, making the jury’s knowledge of his silence particularly damaging.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the absolute prohibition on using a defendant’s post-Miranda silence as evidence. Defense attorneys must vigilantly object to any testimony suggesting their client invoked constitutional rights. Prosecutors must carefully instruct witnesses to avoid any reference to a defendant’s decision to remain silent. Trial courts should provide immediate curative instructions when such testimony inadvertently enters the record.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Morrison
Citation
1997 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 950869-CA
Date Decided
May 8, 1997
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Testimony about a defendant’s invocation of constitutional rights after Miranda warnings violates due process and requires reversal when no curative jury instruction is given.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding constitutional violations
Practice Tip
Always object immediately to any testimony that describes a defendant’s invocation of Miranda rights or decision to remain silent, as such evidence is categorically improper and prejudicial.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.