Question: What Is A Doyle Violation In A Criminal Case?
Answer: It Is When A Prosecution Witness Comments About The Defendant’s Silence After Being Given The Miranda Warning After Arrest During Testimony In Front Of The Jury. See Below.
R.H. worked as a bookkeeper for several businesses owned by Derek Daly. As a bookkeeper, R.H. reviewed invoices, balanced the books, reconciled the bank statements, had access to checks and had the ability to print checks on Daly’s computer. R.H. also prepared checks for Daly’s approval and signature, kept all cancelled checks and maintained Daly’s financial records in a computer program. After R.H. stopped working for Daly, Daly discovered $17,500 missing from his accounts. Over a 3 month period, 4 checks had been written to R.H. or his business. Two of the checks, one for $8,000 and the other for $6,000 were written to C.I.A. Commercial Cleaning Service, a company R.H. owned. The 2 checks written to C.I.A. indicated 2 different addresses for C.I.A. However, there was no C.I.A. Commercial Cleaning business located at either of the addresses. The 2 remaining checks were written to R.H. in the amounts of $2,500 and $1,000. Daly denied signing or authorizing the checks. Daly did not know of C.I.A. Commercial Cleaning until he discovered these checks. Although all of Daly’s other cancelled checks were recovered, the checks written to C.I.A. and R.H. were not. Furthermore, during R.H.’s period of employment as bookkeeper several of the computer records of Daly’s accounts were altered. Specifically, some of the recovered cancelled checks were entered in Daly’s computer accounting program for higher and lower amounts than the amounts for which the checks were cashed. All together, the alterations masked about $5,600 of the shortage in Daly’s accounts.
At trial, R.H. did not dispute that he received and cashed the 4 missing checks. However, he claimed that the checks were compensation for services rendered and represented a loan that he repaid. R.H. further claims his compensation was set at $500 per week or $2000 per month. On the other hand, Daly claims that the checks bear a forgery of his signature and do not represent compensation or a loan repayment. Daly claims that R.H. was paid $11.00 per hour. The prosecution’s first witness testified that he questioned R.H. about the checks and commented on R.H.’s decision to invoke his right to an attorney. R.H. was convicted on 2 counts of theft and 2 counts of conversion. He was given the maximum sentence on all counts and this appeal followed.
R.H. contends that his trial was fundamentally unfair because a State’s witness commented on his post-Miranda silence in response to questions from the prosecution. At trial, the State presented evidence that R.H. was read the Miranda warnings and questioned about the alleged crimes. The following exchange occurred during Officer Dave Underwood’s testimony:
Q: What did you do once you made contact with him?
A: We explained what we needed to talk to him about, the checks from Mr. Daly’s office. At first he was willing to talk to us until he found out it was going to be tape recorded and then he changed his mind. Once he invoked his right to an attorney, we ceased contact about the statement and served him with the search warrant for the handwriting sample, which he provided for us.
Q: Did you explain his Miranda rights for him?
A: Yes.
Q: And was it at that point that he asked to talk to an attorney before he spoke with you?
A: That’s correct.
A violation of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment occurs when a defendant’s post-Miranda silence is used for impeachment purposes. To find otherwise violates the inherent protections offered by the Miranda warnings that assure the accused that silence carries no penalty. Initially, we conclude that there was a Doyle violation, but we note that R.H. waived his claim of a Doyle violation by failing to object at trial. Failure to assert an objection during trial waives the issue on appeal. 12 N.E.3d 879