State v. Mcelreavy
Annotate this Case
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.
No. 88-260
State of Vermont Supreme Court
v. On Appeal from
District Court of Vermont,
Edward A. McElreavy Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
September Term, 1990
Dean B. Pineles, J.
Jane Woodruff, Orleans County State's Attorney, Newport, and Gary Kessler
and Rosemary Hull, Department of State's Attorneys, Montpelier, for
plaintiff-appellee
Robert Katims of Martin & Paolini, P.C., Barre, for defendant-appellant
PRESENT: Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.
GIBSON, J. Defendant appeals from a conviction after jury trial for
arson, arguing a violation of Vermont constitutional guarantees against
self-incrimination, improper failure of the trial court to suppress
statements made in the absence of a Miranda warning, and certain errors
during sentencing. We affirm.
I.
Defendant operated a restaurant as a lessee in a St. Johnsbury building
in which a fire occurred on the night of September 24, 1986. When the
firemen arrived, the door of the building was locked. Detective Richard
Hall, a state fire investigator, arrived at the scene during the fire and
noticed a petroleum odor, although the building was heated by propane. He
testified that the evidence indicated a multiple-origin fire, which was
consistent with arson. In the bar area of the restaurant, there was a
melted plastic jug, and another jug in the kitchen inside a pail. Tests
indicated that the liquid in the jugs was gasoline. Defendant, who was in
the building when the fire began, had been seen emptying out jugs in the
parking lot of a department store earlier that same evening. Plastic rings
from gallon jugs found at the parking lot matched the jugs found at the
scene of the fire. Inside a closet that was determined to be a separate
point of origin, firemen found some burned debris on top of a plastic pail;
the debris emitted a strong odor of petroleum.
Defendant testified that he had left the building after closing the
restaurant prior to the fire, but returned to retrieve a forgotten money
bag. He stated that a "ball of fire" emerged when he threw a breaker
switch to turn on the lights. A witness who was driving by the restaurant
at the time testified that he saw the entire dining area light up in flames,
an account that was consistent with a gasoline fire, according to the
testimony of the St. Johnsbury fire chief. Detective Hall questioned
defendant at the scene of the fire. The trial court denied a motion to
suppress testimony about that interview and also refused to suppress
physical evidence seized at the scene immediately after the fire was
extinguished.
Subsequent to the fire, defendant filed a claim with his fire insurance
carrier seeking recovery of more than $11,000. Defendant's policy included
a provision requiring him to submit to examination under oath in connection
with any claim he might make. When the insurance carrier sought to depose
defendant about his claim, it notified him that he would forfeit his claim
if he failed to appear for the deposition. Shortly after notice of the
deposition was given to defendant, the State filed its information against
him. Defendant did not appear at the deposition or ever communicate,
either directly or through a representative, with the insurance company or
its attorney.
Prior to trial, the court denied defendant's motion in limine to
exclude testimony that he had failed to appear for the civil deposition.
After an eight-day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict, and the
present appeal followed.
II.
A.
Defendant argues that the State's comment on his failure to appear for
the civil deposition violated his Vermont constitutional rights. He con-
tends that Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution offers broader
protection against self-incrimination than the United States Constitution,
and urges this Court to follow Pennsylvania's lead and not "'differentiate
between situations where the right to remain silent is exercised following
warnings and where it is exercised without warnings being given.'"
Commonwealth v. Turner, 499 Pa. 579, 584, 454 A.2d 537, 540 (1982) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Easley, 483 Pa. 337, 341-42 n.5, 396 A.2d 1198, 1200-01 n.5
(1979)).
We have previously held that Article 10 requires a timely assertion of
the privilege against self-incrimination. In re Consolidated Rendering Co.,
80 Vt. 55, 75-76, 66 A. 790, 798 (1907), aff'd, 207 U.S. 541 (1908); State
v. Duncan, 78 Vt. 364, 370, 63 A. 225, 228 (1906). Our rule reflects the
well-established federal rule that the privilege is not self-executing but,
instead, must be timely asserted. See, e.g., Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 427 (1984) (if a witness desires the protection of the privilege, he
must claim it); Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 559 (1980)
("privilege may not be relied upon unless it is invoked in a timely
fashion"). Defendant could have exercised his privilege at the civil
deposition, even though it was not a criminal proceeding. See Lefkowitz v.
Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 805 (1977).
Defendant, however, failed to appear for the deposition and, at the
time, provided no explanation whatsoever. His silence does not constitute
an assertion of the privilege. See United States v. Nabors, 707 F.2d 1294,
1299 (11th Cir. 1983) (failure to respond to insurance company's request for
information commented upon at defendant's criminal trial; court held that
because privilege was not claimed at "the time of silence, defendant could
not claim it at trial"); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir.
1981) (privilege lost when defendant failed to object or respond in a timely
manner to interrogatories). Defendant asserted the privilege for the first
time in a pretrial motion in limine. By failing to assert the privilege in
a timely manner in response to specific questions, defendant has prevented
court review of his claim in the context of those questions. See In re
Dewar, 102 Vt. 340, 345, 148 A. 489, 490 (1930) (legitimacy of witness's
assertion of the privilege under Chapter I, Article 10 is determined by the
court, not the witness); State v. Wood, 99 Vt. 490, 492-93, 134 A. 697, 698
(1926) (same); see also Roberts, 445 U.S. at 560 n.7 (same rule under
federal constitution); Davis, 650 F.2d at 1160 ("blanket claim of privilege
is simply insufficient"). Accordingly, defendant may not now be heard to
assert that the prosecutor's comment upon his failure to appear at the
deposition violated his privilege.
B.
Defendant also contends that this evidence should not have been
admitted because it was irrelevant, relying on State v. Benneig, 146 Vt.
391, 397-98, 505 A.2d 1192, 1196-97 (1985) (citing People v. Diaz, 98 Mich.
App. 675, 684, 296 N.W.2d 337, 341 (1980)). In Benneig, we affirmed the
trial court's ruling that barred comment by counsel on a witness's assertion
at trial of his privilege. In contrast, the instant case involves use of
defendant's silence. We note that Benneig relies on Michigan case law,
which distinguishes between use of a defendant's silence and a witness's
assertion of the privilege. Compare People v. Cetlinski, 435 Mich. 742,
760, 460 N.W.2d 534, 542-43 (1990) (prearrest pre-Miranda "nonverbal conduct
by a defendant, a failure to come forward, is relevant and probative for
impeachment purposes when the court determines that it would have been
'natural' for the person to have come forward with the exculpatory infor-
mation under the circumstances"), with People v. Dyer, 425 Mich. 572, 581,
390 N.W.2d 645, 650 (1986) ("'As a matter of public policy, we believe the
exercise of a witness's constitutional right to remain silent should not be
used as evidence to support an inference for either side.'") (quoting Diaz,
98 Mich App. at 684, 296 N.W.2d at 341). (FN1) Thus, the rule expressed in
Benneig is not strictly applicable herein.
Further, the posture of the instant case is significantly different
from that in Benneig. In Benneig, we affirmed the trial court's ruling to
exclude comment during final argument. In contrast, defendant seeks
reversal of an evidentiary ruling. The trial judge has broad discretion in
determining whether evidence is relevant. State v. Derouchie, 153 Vt. 29,
34, 568 A.2d 416, 418 (1989). Additionally, whether the "'probative value
is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice'" is also left
to the trial court's discretion. Id. (quoting V.R.E. 403). In making Rule
403 determinations, the trial judge has substantial discretion and, absent
an abuse of discretion, will not be overruled. State v. Callahan, ___ Vt.
___, ___, 587 A.2d 970, 973 (1991). "'To support a claim of abuse of
discretion, defendant must show that the court's discretion was either
totally withheld or exercised on grounds clearly untenable or unreason-
able.'" State v. Parker, 149 Vt. 393, 401, 545 A.2d 512, 517 (1988)
(quoting State v. Dorn, 145 Vt. 606, 616, 496 A.2d 451, 457 (1985)). "This
burden is a heavy one and often difficult to satisfy; nevertheless, it has
always been the standard." Id.
In the instant case, the State's Attorney argued before the trial court
that "for someone to throw away a claim worth $11,000 needs some
explanation, and I can't think of any explanation other than he didn't want
to talk about this fire because he did it." Defendant argued that the
evidence was not relevant and that, in any event, pursuant to V.R.E. 403, it
should be excluded. The trial court ruled that the proffered testimony was
"not insolubly ambiguous," that a "jury could reasonably draw some
inferences" from it, and that under "the unique factual situation here" the
evidence was admissible.
Defendant's failure to attend the deposition may well have some
probative value under a consciousness-of-guilt theory. See Gainer v. State,
553 So. 2d 673, 683 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) (defendant's failure to attend a
civil deposition held admissible in a criminal trial to show consciousness
of guilt); see also People v. Heidorn, 114 Ill. App. 3d 933, 938, 449 N.E.2d 568, 574 (1983) ("A defendant's silence prior to arrest is admissible, as is
the failure to give statements to private parties, such as security guards,
as opposed to the police."). Considering all of the circumstances, we
believe the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the
evidence.
III.
Defendant next argues that the trial court should have refused to
allow testimony about statements he made to the detective on the night of
the fire. No Miranda warnings were given at that time. Relying on State v.
Brunell, 150 Vt. 388, 554 A.2d 242 (1988), defendant contends that he did
not feel free to leave the scene during questioning, and hence, felt under
arrest.
The instant case is not, however, analogous to Brunell. In Brunell,
the defendant and his wife were taken late at night by police cruiser to the
state police barracks, about a half-hour drive away, where the defendant was
subjected to a lengthy interrogation by two officers in a small office, out
of the presence of his wife. Defendant's brother was not allowed to go with
them, and when defendant's mother inquired whether they "had" to go that
night, the police answered that they did. The trial court concluded that "a
reasonable person in defendant's shoes under the existing circumstances
would not have felt free to leave or to refuse to submit to questioning."
Id. at 391, 554 A.2d at 244. After noting that the court's ruling would not
be reversed unless it was clearly erroneous, id. at 390, 554 A.2d at 243, we
held that "[t]he trial court's conclusion was not erroneous as a matter of
law." Id. at 392, 554 A.2d at 244.
In contrast, in the instant case the trial court found that the
interview between defendant and Officer Hall "took place in the officer's
car, to which the defendant went on invitation of the officer" within
minutes of the officer's arrival on the scene. After the interview, "which
took several minutes," the officer and defendant returned to the parking lot
of the restaurant, where they each remained for several hours. The court
concluded:
The defendant accompanied the officer voluntarily to
his car, which was a more reasonable place to conduct a
conversation than the fire scene. Neither the circum-
stances of the conversation nor the location were
custodial, and Mirandas were not required.
Defendant faults the trial court for not specifically finding that he
felt "free to leave or to refuse to answer police questioning." State v.
Willis, 145 Vt. 459, 475, 494 A.2d 108, 117 (1985). Defendant misreads
Willis. We stressed in that case that the trial court should make an
objective inquiry into the totality of the circumstances of any inter-
rogation to determine if a reasonable person would believe he or she were
free to leave or to refuse to answer police questions, and that the court
should keep a watchful eye on "situations approximating 'incommunicado
interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere,' Miranda [v.
Arizona], 384 U.S. [436,] 445 [(1966)], or the 'functional equivalent of
formal arrest.'" Id. (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442
(1984). The trial court made very clear in the instant case that defendant
was never in a custodial setting and that he in fact left the police cruiser
after very brief questioning. The court did not have to recite any
particular words to validate its conclusion that the questioning of
defendant took place in a noncustodial setting, and it was not compelled to
find in haec verba that a reasonable person in defendant's situation would
have felt free to leave the car if and when he chose to do so.
IV.
Finally, defendant contends that the trial court erred in its
sentencing when it allowed evidence of the fire insurer's damages, because
the insurance company was not a "victim" within the meaning of 13 V.S.A. {
5301. A letter from the insurer was presented to the court indicating that
in addition to payment of the loss to the insured, it had spent approxi-
mately $25,000 in attorney's fees, employees' wages and salaries, investi-
gative expenses, and overhead. We need not reach the question of whether
the insurer was a "victim" for purposes of { 5301, since the only questions
presented are whether the evidence of the insurer's loss was relevant, and
if so, whether the trial court weighed the evidence properly in considering
its sentence. We stated in State v. Bushway, 146 Vt. 405, 407, 505 A.2d 660, 661 (1985): "In fashioning a sentence, the court is called upon to
consider a wide range of 'relevant' information. The propensity and nature
of the offender, the particular acts by which the crime was committed, and
the circumstances of the offense are all relevant to the determination of an
appropriate sentence."
Defendant does not argue that the damage caused by the arson is irrele-
vant. But he asserts that an insurer's costs of investigating and paying a
claim cannot be considered by a sentencing court because "[i]nsurance com-
panies investigate and pay claims as part of their job" and such costs are
"part of the costs of running their business." True as that may be, defend-
ant does not explain why the harm to the insurer attributable to him should
fall outside the scope of the consequences of his arson. See State v.
Hagen, 361 N.W.2d 407, 414 (Minn. App. 1985) ("An arson significantly more
serious than a typical arson also justifies a durational departure . . . .
The insurance company lost more than $70,000, and the new buyers lost a
house which had historical value.").
In the present case, the insurer itemized and distinguished amounts
paid directly to the insured, expenses directly attributable to the crime,
such as legal and investigatory expenses, and allocations of existing over-
head expenses, such as wages and salaries paid to employees. There is no
indication from the record that the court misunderstood the information
supplied by the insurer or that it gave undue weight to that information in
evaluating the impact of defendant's crime. Defendant bears the burden of
establishing prejudice in the sentencing procedures, State v. Cyr, 141 Vt.
353, 357, 449 A.2d 926, 927 (1982), and he has not done so herein.
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
______________________________
Associate Justice
FN1. Defendant has made no argument that he ever received Miranda
warnings or comparable affirmative assurances from the State regarding his
right to remain silent prior to his failure to appear at the scheduled
deposition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCURRING
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.
No. 88-260
State of Vermont Supreme Court
v. On Appeal from
District Court of Vermont,
Edward A. McElreavy Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
September Term, 1990
Dean B. Pineles, J.
Jane Woodruff, Orleans County State's Attorney, Newport, and Gary Kessler
and Rosemary Hull, Department of State's Attorneys, Montpelier, for
plaintiff-appellee
Robert Katims of Martin & Paolini, P.C., Barre, for defendant-appellant
PRESENT: Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.
PECK, J., concurring. I agree with the result reached in this matter
and, generally, with the supporting rationale as well. Nevertheless, since
I believe strongly, to put it as tactfully as I can, that State v. Brunell,
150 Vt. 388, 554 A.2d 242 (1988), is one of the most unfortunate decisions
in the recent history of this Court, I cannot remain silent when it is cited
as precedent for one of the important concerns in this case. To do so might
give the impression that I have revised the views expressed in my dissent in
Brunell. In fact, I think the Court's conclusions drawn from the facts in
that case should not be condoned and perpetuated by being cited to support a
point of law in subsequent cases.
We cannot, of course, "overrule" Brunell because that insult to justice
and public safety is almost entirely fact-based. However, the facts in
Brunell, as set forth in the opinion here, are grossly one-sided and gives a
completely misleading picture of the factual totality. A fair and complete
recitation of those facts exposes the full extent to which the majority was
prepared to go to justify a predetermined result.
There are many precedents which might have been cited in support of a
well-settled point of law without relying on Brunell and thereby putting
the Court's stamp of approval on a bad decision. I will not sanction
anything which might even possibly be construed to indicate that I am now
content with Brunell. Since my concern is fact-based, however, and I have
no quarrel with the point of law involved, I concur with the result, feeling
nevertheless, that Brunell should be allowed to fade into history as an
unfortunate aberration or an incident of bad judgment which reflects no
credit on the Court.
________________________________
Associate Justice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.
No. 88-260
State of Vermont Supreme Court
v. On Appeal from
District Court of Vermont,
Edward A. McElreavy Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
September Term, 1990
Dean B. Pineles, J.
Jane Woodruff, Orleans County State's Attorney, Newport, and Gary Kessler
and Rosemary Hull, Department of State's Attorneys, Montpelier, for
plaintiff-appellee
Robert Katims of Martin & Paolini, P.C., Barre, for defendant-appellant
PRESENT: Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.
MORSE, J., concurring and dissenting. The Court holds that defendant
did not timely assert his privilege against self-incrimination because he
"failed to appear for the deposition and, at the time, provided no
explanation whatsoever. His silence does not constitute an assertion of the
privilege." The Court goes on to hold that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion under V.R.E. 401-403, distinguishing State v. Benneig, 146
Vt. 391, 505 A.2d 1192 (1985). For the reasons that follow, I do not agree
that the Court's analysis adequately addresses defendant's claims in part
II of its opinion and, therefore, I concur in Part II(A) and dissent in part
II(B).
Before trial, defendant filed a motion in limine requesting the court
to prohibit the State from calling Duncan Kilmartin, a lawyer representing
Co-operative Fire Insurance Association of Vermont, the fire-loss carrier.
According to the motion, the purpose of Mr. Kilmartin's testimony was to
inform the jury that defendant, several weeks after he had been charged with
arson, did not appear at a noticed deposition to answer questions about the
fire. Defendant's first claim was that such evidence was irrelevant and,
if relevant, unduly prejudicial. V.R.E. 401-403. He also raised the
Vermont Constitution, Chapter I, Article 10, as a bar to such evidence. The
State sought to introduce the evidence because, as the prosecutor argued at
the motion hearing, defendant "didn't want to talk about this fire because
he did it." The trial court ruled that the evidence had some relevance and
that Article 10 did not come directly into play. It did not indicate, that
a V.R.E. 403 balancing was undertaken.
Mr. Kilmartin was allowed to testify. He stated that he sent a letter
to defendant on January 6, 1987, requesting him to appear at an examination
under oath in accordance with his fire insurance policy, which required the
insured to cooperate with the insurer. The letter instructed defendant to
appear at Kilmartin's office on January 28, 1987, and warned him that
noncooperation might "cause forfeiture of all his rights under the policy."
Defendant did not appear on January 28 and did not communicate with
Kilmartin as to why not. The following day, January 29, defendant was sent
a letter informing him that his policy had been voided due to his
noncooperation. Kilmartin did not thereafter communicate with defendant nor
defendant with him.
I.
Chapter I, Article 10 provides, in relevant part:
[I]n all prosecutions for criminal offenses, a person
. . . [cannot] be compelled to give evidence against
himself. . . .
This prohibition does not render inadmissible a "statement that is freely
and voluntarily given, without any compelling influence." State v. Miner,
128 Vt. 55, 70, 258 A.2d 815, 824 (1969). When a statement is procured by a
representative of the State, its admissibility against the defendant under
Article 10 depends on compliance with Miranda. State v. Brunelle, 148 Vt.
347, 355 n.11, 534 A.2d 198, 204 n.11 (1987) ("evidence obtained in
violation of Miranda is also in violation of the privilege against self-
incrimination in Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution.").
These Article 10 considerations simply did not arise in this case.
First, Duncan Kilmartin was not an agent of the State, and defendant was not
in custody as a result of anything Kilmartin did. He merely represented a
private insurance company, and his purpose was to carry out the
investigative function under defendant's insurance contract. The fact that
Mr. Kilmartin would undoubtedly turn over any results of his investigation
to the prosecution does not trigger Article 10. See State v. Killary, 133
Vt. 604, 606, 349 A.2d 216, 217 (1975) (any statement given spontaneously
and voluntarily without any compelling influences is admissible into
evidence, even if given to an undercover agent, as long as the agent was not
"planted" for the sole purpose of investigating the accused). Second,
representing a private interest, Mr. Kilmartin was not required to issue
Miranda warnings to defendant prior to asking him questions about the fire.
II.
The crux of defendant's claim is the law of relevancy. V.R.E. 402
states, "Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible." V.R.E. 401
provides:
"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency
to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence
to the determination of the action more probable or less
probable than it would be without the evidence.
The test of relevancy involves the application of logic, common sense, and
experience, and for purposes of this inquiry raises the question, "Is the
evidence probative of the proposition for which it is offered?" Reporter's
Notes, V.R.E. 401, at 334.
Here, the evidence that defendant did not show up at the insurance
deposition was claimed to be probative of the proposition that defendant
"didn't want to talk about this fire because he did it." The weakness of
the probative value of this evidence for a proper evidentiary purpose,
however, is readily apparent.
The logic employed by the prosecution is quite simple. A person's
silence under circumstances when an innocent person would ordinarily speak
is evidence of guilt. The silence is viewed as a statement tending to
inculpate. An example illustrates this proposition. X, who has just shot
Y, is asked, "Why did you shoot Y?" X says nothing. At trial, the defense
is self-defense. X's silence is evidence tending to prove that the shooting
was not in self-defense because had it been X would have said so when asked
why.
We know, however, that not only guilty people are silent in the face of
an accusation. Just about everyone has heard of "Miranda rights" and knows
at least that "you have a right to remain silent." The standard lawyer's
advice to defendant clients -- innocent as well as guilty -- is to refrain
from discussing the case with anyone until and if there is reason to do so.
The strength of the inference that defendant would have answered Kilmartin's
questions if he had been innocent is sapped by the competing explanation
that, having been charged with arson several weeks before the scheduled
deposition, defendant would not be so naive as to submit to an insurance
deposition.
State v. Benneig, 146 Vt. 391, 397-98, 505 A.2d 1192, 1196-97 (1985),
is instructive. There, a witness's invocation of the privilege against
self-incrimination and refusal to answer questions about his involvement
were, we held, "simply not relevant, probative evidence." The defense in
Benneig argued, as the State argues here, that guilt may be inferred from
silence. The court prohibited the defense from arguing to the jury that the
witness had a guilty mind and even instructed the jury that no inferences
may be drawn from the witness's silence.
We were clear in Benneig that a refusal to answer questions about a
matter that might tend to incriminate the witness was "simply not evidence"
and quoted with approval a Michigan case, People v. Diaz, 98 Mich. App. 675,
684, 296 N.W.2d 337, 341 (1980):
As a matter of public policy, we believe the exercise of
a witness's constitutional right to remain silent should
not be used as evidence to support an inference for
either side. Such an inference is wholly speculative
since it rests on litigants' perception of juries'
foibles. A jury may infer the refusal to testify is a
confession implicating defendant or may somehow believe
defendant was not involved since his accomplice would
not testify. Neither inference is desirable because the
former is obviously prejudicial to defendants while the
latter inference cannot be combated by the truth testing
device of cross-examination due to the constitutional
rights of the witness. Nor can the evidence be termed
"relevant evidence." Relevant evidence means evidence
having any tendency to make the existence of any fact
that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more probable or less probable than it would be
without the evidence. . . . The wholly speculative
inference advanced by defendant does not make the
existence of any fact of consequence more probable or
less probable.
It is certainly no point of distinction to hold, as the Court holds
today, that defendant here did not claim his privilege as the witness in
Benneig did. The probative value of defendant's silence would have been no
different if he had responded to Mr. Kilmartin's invitation to come to his
office but refused to answer questions while there. Defendant was under no
legal compulsion to attend the deposition. He had every right to decline
the invitation; no R.S.V.P. was needed. His decision not to attend may have
been motivated by the entirely legitimate purpose of refraining from
discussing with Mr. Kilmartin the crime with which he was charged. Thus,
it would not "have been 'natural' for the person to have come forward with
the exculpatory information under the circumstances." People v. Cetlinski,
435 Mich. 742, 760, 460 N.W.2d 534, 542-43 (1990).
The point to be gleaned from Benneig is that it is impermissible to
encourage the jury to infer guilt from silence in the face of accusatory
interrogatories. If the accused -- guilty or innocent -- did not have the
right to remain silent in such circumstances, then silence would be relevant
evidence. The privilege against self-incrimination strips silence of its
otherwise probative worth, and we can no longer say that the circumstances
are such that an innocent person would speak. We cannot know in the face of
the right of silence whether silence is indicative of guilt because both the
guilty and innocent have the right to remain silent. To infer that silence
means guilt assumes too much. Silence, when one is legally entitled to be
silent, is equivocal behavior at best. Benneig's rationale cannot be
distinguished as the Court would wish.
This is not a case where defendant's silence was used to impeach his
credibility. See Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 238-39 (1980) (fifth
amendment self-incrimination privilege not violated when prosecution
impeaches defendant with pre-arrest silence, but a state may prohibit such
evidence as more unduly prejudicial than probative); Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603, 607 (1982) (same effect when post-arrest silence is used to
impeach defendant's credibility). No United States Supreme Court case has
yet to allow evidence of one's silence to be used in the prosecution's case-
in-chief.
I am mindful that trial courts have broad discretion in making
relevancy determinations under V.R.E. 401. E.g., State v. Hooper, 151 Vt.
42, 46, 557 A.2d 880, 882 (1988); cases cited in Reporter's Notes, V.R.E.
401, at 334-35. Even if Benneig is wrong in its analysis of the relevancy
of silence, the discretion to admit marginally relevant evidence is narrowed
by V.R.E. 403. That rule states:
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue
delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of
cumulative evidence.
Thus, we have held that evidence of prior convictions, admissible to
impeach credibility under V.R.E. 609, must be balanced against the chilling
effect on defendant's right to testify. State v. Jarrett, 143 Vt. 191, 194,
465 A.2d 238, 240 (1983); see also State v. Percy, 146 Vt. 475, 483-84, 507 A.2d 955, 960 (1986) (expert opinion that rapists typically claim consent or
amnesia not admissible, even if relevant, because its probative value was
substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice).
That the Kilmartin testimony engendered unfair prejudice to defendant
was obvious. The testimony was an implicit comment, during the State's
case-in-chief, on defendant's failure to come forward before trial and deny
his guilt. Defendant's privilege against self-incrimination was adversely
affected because he would naturally feel compelled to testify in order to
rebut any inference that he was hiding the truth. Had he not taken the
stand, defendant would have been doubly disadvantaged. First, he would have
left the jury with no legitimate reason for his not attending the
deposition, and second, the jury would be left with the impression --
reinforced by his pretrial silence -- that defendant at trial had something
to hide. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 614 (1965) (pressure to
testify in the face of adverse comment if defendant remains silent
undermines the privilege "by making its assertion costly"). Moreover, the
Kilmartin testimony was introduced both to attack defendant's credibility
and to show his consciousness of guilt -- areas we have previously
identified as most critical in demonstrating unfair prejudice. State v.
Valley, 153 Vt. 380, 387, 571 A.2d 579, 583 (1989).
The Court does not address these considerations at all, let alone
indicate what rationale would support the trial court's ruling in face of
them. The Court merely incants the abuse-of-discretion boilerplate and
leaves the application of the incantation to the facts of this case a
mystery for the reader to figure out.
The Court's reliance on United States v. Nabors, 707 F.2d 1294 (11th
Cir. 1983), to justify the admission of defendant's silence is misplaced.
Nabors leased an airplane, which was flown, landed, and burned by a man
named Warner. The plane contained marijuana. Warner testified against
Nabors saying defendant hired him to smuggle the marijuana into the United
States. In its case-in-chief, the prosecution presented evidence that
Nabors did not respond to an insurance company's request, which was sent one
and one-half years before Nabors was indicted, concerning Nabor's
involvement in the use of, and damage to, the airplane. The court ruled the
evidence did not violate defendant's privilege under the fifth amendment.
The court noted that "Nabors objected and appealed purely on Fifth Amendment
grounds" and stated, "We decide the constitutional issue on the assumption
that the evidence was relevant." Id. at 1298. The court acknowledged that
"[t]he constitutionality of admitting the evidence is difficult to decide."
Id. Thus, the issue I discuss here was not before the court in Nabors, and
its analysis assumes that Nabors' silence somehow was relevant evidence.
The Nabors court said:
We need not concern ourselves as to whether there were
innocent explanations for this action that rob it of
evidentiary value. None were argued.
Finally, Nabors did not address a balancing under F.R.E. 403, apparently
because it was not raised.
There is no doubt in my mind that defendant was greatly and unfairly
prejudiced by the Kilmartin testimony and admitting it in the face of V.R.E.
403 was an abuse of discretion. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
____________________________________
Associate Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
