State v. Triplett
Decision Date | 20 February 2018 |
Docket Number | No. COA13-1289-2,COA13-1289-2 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. James Douglas TRIPLETT |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General John H. Watters, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender David W. Andrews, for Defendant.
James Douglas Triplett ("Defendant") appealed from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon, second-degree burglary, and first-degree felony murder. The trial court arrested judgment on Defendant’s convictions for robbery with a dangerous weapon and second-degree burglary, and entered a judgment on the first-degree murder conviction. Defendant originally argued that the trial court erred by: (1) preventing Defendant from cross-examining his sister with a recording of a voicemail message in order to attack her credibility, and (2) allowing the State to use Defendant’s silence against him. Defendant’s first argument was addressed by this Court in a 2 September 2014 opinion that held Defendant was entitled to a new trial based on Defendant’s first argument and, thus, it was not necessary to decide on Defendant’s second argument. State v. Triplett , 236 N.C. App. 192, 762 S.E.2d 632 (2014). On discretionary review, our Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court and remanded the case to this Court for consideration of Defendant’s second argument. State v. Triplett , 368 N.C. 172, 775 S.E.2d 805 (2015).
Defendant now argues the trial court erred in allowing "the State to use [Defendant’s] post-arrest exercise of his right to [remain silent] against him." We disagree.
Under both the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 23 of the North Carolina Constitution, any criminal defendant has the right to remain silent. Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ; State v. Lane , 301 N.C. 382, 384, 271 S.E.2d 273, 275 (1980). Miranda requires that before any person in custody is subjected to interrogation, that person must be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that they have the right to remain silent. Miranda , 384 U.S. at 467–68, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Once a defendant receives Miranda warnings and chooses to exercise the right to remain silent, the defendant’s subsequent silence "cannot be used against him to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial." State v. Westbrooks , 345 N.C. 43, 63, 478 S.E.2d 483, 495 (1996) (citing Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed. 2d 91 (1976) ). This protection arises because of an implicit assurance in Miranda that a defendant will not be penalized for exercising his constitutional right to remain silent.
Doyle , 426 U.S. at 617–18, 96 S.Ct. at 2244–45, 49 L.Ed. 2d at 91.
However, in order for a defendant to enjoy the protections of the Fifth Amendment, or Article I, Section 23 of the North Carolina Constitution, he must actually invoke this right, either expressly or by implication. A defendant expressly invokes his right to silence by stating that choice. A defendant invokes his right by implication when he has been advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda and chooses through his silence to claim his constitutional protections against self-incrimination:
Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610, 617–18, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed. 2d 91 (1976) (citations and footnotes omitted).1
In the present case, this Court does not have to consider whether the State violated the Fifth Amendment by its questions and remarks at trial. Defendant’s argument in the present case fails for the same reason as did the defendant’s argument in State v. Alkano , 119 N.C. App. 256, 458 S.E.2d 258 (1995) :
[D]efendant contends that the in-court testimony of the officers concerning defendant’s pre- Miranda , post-arrest lack of explanation or statement violated his constitutional right to remain silent. The problem with defendant’s argument, here, is that defendant did not choose to remain silent.
Id . at 260, 458 S.E.2d at 261. The record evidence before us in the present case also indicates that Defendant did not choose to remain silent. The uncontradicted evidence presented by the State indicates that Defendant voluntarily talked with officers after his arrest.
State v. McGinnis , 70 N.C. App. 421, 423–24, 320 S.E.2d 297, 300 (1984) ; see also Fletcher v. Weir , 455 U.S. 603, 605–06, 102 S.Ct. 1309, 71 L.Ed. 2d 490 (1982) (citation omitted) () .
As there is no record evidence that Defendant was given Miranda warnings, or that he at any time specifically invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, Defendant cannot demonstrate that his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent was improperly used against him at trial. This Court in Alkano cited with approval the following reasoning from United States v. Agee , 597 F.2d 350 (3rd Cir. 1979) :
"Silence" at the time of arrest is the critical element of the Fifth Amendment right on which Agee relies .... The Supreme Court has described that right as "the right ‘to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will.’ " The rationale which the Supreme Court adopted for its decision in Doyle was that it is fundamentally unfair for the prosecution to impose a penalty at trial on a defendant who has exercised that right by choosing to remain silent. ... Doyle can have...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Huml v. Huml
...program.3 Father attempts to raise other issues in his reply brief, but he has waived these arguments. See State v. Triplett , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 810 S.E.2d 404, 407–08 (2018) ("Defendant may not use his reply brief to make new arguments on appeal. A reply brief is not an avenue to c......
-
State v. King
...the record is in proper form and complete." State v. Alston , 307 N.C. 321, 341, 298 S.E.2d 631, 644 (1983) ; State v. Triplett , 258 N.C. App. 144, 147, 810 S.E.2d 404, 408 (2018).¶ 15 The trial court entered a civil judgment ordering Defendant to pay $1,500.00 in attorney fees. The record......
-
State v. Wiles
...App. P. 28(h)(3), and Defendant may not assert new grounds for appellate review in the reply brief. See State v. Triplett , 258 N.C. App. 144, 147, 810 S.E.2d 404, 407 (2018). ...
-
IzMaCo Invs. v. Royal Roofing & Restoration, LLC
...to file shall be limited to a concise rebuttal of arguments set out in the appellee's brief" (emphasis added)); State v. Triplett, 258 N.C.App. 144, 147, 810 S.E.2d 404, 407-08 (2018) ("[Appellant] may not use his reply brief to make new arguments on appeal. [A] reply brief is not an avenue......