State v. Munson, 84-129
| Decision Date | 01 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-129,84-129 |
| Citation | 126 N.H. 191,489 A.2d 646 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Kenneth MUNSON. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Stephen E. Merrill, Atty. Gen. (Steven L. Winer, Nashua, attorney, on the brief), by brief for the State.
James E. Duggan, Appellate Defender, Concord, by brief for defendant.
We are asked to decide whether the Superior Court (DiClerico, J.) improperly denied the defendant's mistrial motion after evidence was erroneously admitted that the defendant at his arrest exercised his rights to remain silent and to confer with counsel. We find that the admission of the evidence was not prejudicial and therefore affirm the trial court's decision.
The defendant was tried before a jury on a charge of aggravated felonious sexual assault, RSA 632-A:2 (Supp.1983), of a thirteen year old girl. The evidence admitted against the defendant included the victim's testimony describing the incident, the testimony of the victim's sister that she had been informed of the incident by the victim shortly after its occurrence, the testimony of a police officer to whom the victim had reported the incident, and another police officer's testimony that the defendant had fled New Hampshire and had been extradited from Louisiana to face the charge.
At trial, Detective William Isbill of the Nashua Police Department testified that after being arrested, the defendant asserted his rights to remain silent and to confer with an attorney. Detective Isbill testified
The defendant made a timely objection and exception to this testimony.
The admissibility of the testimony was taken up by the court the following day at a conference with the parties. At that time, the defendant moved for a mistrial. The court declined to rule on the motion, but noted that the defendant had sound reasons for objecting to the testimony. The court observed, "The witness should not have made those statements, and the fact that he did make them does rise to a problem of constitutional dimensions."
To limit the prejudicial effect of the testimony, a number of curative steps were taken. The court offered to make limiting instructions to the jury both upon the resumption and at the close of trial. The defendant agreed only to the latter. The prosecutor agreed to and subsequently did ask Detective Isbill several leading questions that indicated to the jury that it was "normal" for arrestees to request to call an attorney and that attorneys usually tell arrestees to remain silent. Finally, the court granted the defendant's motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cote, 83-334
...the reference to silence is generally sufficient. State v. Seeley, 116 N.H. 831, 368 A.2d 1171, 1174 (1976). See also State v. Munson, 126 N.H. 191, 489 A.2d 646 (1985) (further testimony may counteract any arguable prejudice). In this case the court offered to give such an instruction, but......
-
In re C.O.
...to remain silent during custodial interrogation may not be used against the defendant at his or her criminal trial. State v. Munson, 126 N.H. 191, 192-93, 489 A.2d 646 (1985) (defendant's silence after his arrest could not be used against him at his criminal trial); see also State v. Neeper......
-
State v. Roache
...anything he says can and will be used against him, and that he has a right to counsel. Id. at 467–72, 86 S.Ct. 1602; State v. Munson, 126 N.H. 191, 193, 489 A.2d 646 (1985). If the person asserts any of these rights, all questioning must cease. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 474, 86 S.Ct. 1602; Munso......
-
State v. Neeper
...of the defendant's guilt." State v. Demeritt, 148 N.H. 435, 439–40, 813 A.2d 393 (2002) (citation omitted); see State v. Munson, 126 N.H. 191, 193, 489 A.2d 646 (1985) ("The suspect's silence in the face of accusation may not be used against him at trial." (quotation omitted)); Doyle, 426 U......