Can prosecutors use testimony about a defendant's silence against them at trial? State v. Morrison Explained

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.