Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bellgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Bell, 347 S.C. 267, 271 , 554 S.E.2d 435, 437 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding no due process violation when there was "no evidence in the record that Bell ever received Miranda warnings" and refusing to presume the warnings were given at the time of Bell's arrest); Brown v. State, 375 S.C. 464, 480-81 , 652 S.E.2d 765, 773-74 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding, in a post-conviction relief matter, that Brown failed to meet his burden of proving the solicitor committed a Doyle violation and that trial counsel erred in failing to object when there was "no evidence in the record that Brown ever receiv 2021See State v. Bell, 347 S.C. 267, 271 , 554 S.E.2d 435, 437 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding no due process violation when there was "no evidence in the record that Bell ever received Miranda warnings" and refusing to presume the warnings were given at the time of Bell's arrest); Brown v. State, 375 S.C. 464, 480-81 , 652 S.E.2d 765, 773-74 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding, in a post-conviction relief matter, that Brown failed to meet his burden of proving the solicitor committed a Doyle violation and that trial counsel erred in failing to object when there was "no evidence in the record that Brown ever receiv | 2 | 3 |
Greer v. Millergreen2 sentences2023See Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 763 (1987) (stating where there is no question the defendant received Miranda warnings, "this prerequisite of a Doyle violation was met"); see also Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 (1980) (explaining that Miranda warnings "are required not where a suspect is simply taken into custody, but rather where a suspect in custody is subjected to interrogation"). 2007See also Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 763 , 107 S.Ct. 3102 , 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (the Miranda warnings' implicit assurance provides "the prerequisite of a Doyle violation"). *476 In a case setting the precedent for Brecht, the United States Supreme Court in Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 , 102 S.Ct. 1309 , 71 L.Ed.2d 490 (1982), guarded against the expansion of Doyle . | 2 | 2 |
Lainhart v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See also Lainhart v. State, 916 N.E.2d 924, 936 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("[When] a defendant asserts a Doyle violation, he 'ordinarily bears the burden of showing that Miranda warnings were given prior to the post-arrest silence used by the state for impeachment purposes.'" (quoting 3 Wayne R. 2021See also Lainhart v. State, 916 N.E.2d 924, 936 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("[When] a defendant asserts a Doyle violation, he 'ordinarily bears the burden of showing that Miranda warnings were given prior to the post-arrest silence used by the state for impeachment purposes.'" (quoting 3 Wayne R. | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See State v. Bell, 347 S.C. 267, 271 , 554 S.E.2d 435, 437 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding no due process violation when there was "no evidence in the record that Bell ever received Miranda warnings" and refusing to presume the warnings were given at the time of Bell's arrest); Brown v. State, 375 S.C. 464, 480-81 , 652 S.E.2d 765, 773-74 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding, in a post-conviction relief matter, that Brown failed to meet his burden of proving the solicitor committed a Doyle violation and that trial counsel erred in failing to object when there was "no evidence in the record that Brown ever receiv 2021See State v. Bell, 347 S.C. 267, 271 , 554 S.E.2d 435, 437 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding no due process violation when there was "no evidence in the record that Bell ever received Miranda warnings" and refusing to presume the warnings were given at the time of Bell's arrest); Brown v. State, 375 S.C. 464, 480-81 , 652 S.E.2d 765, 773-74 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding, in a post-conviction relief matter, that Brown failed to meet his burden of proving the solicitor committed a Doyle violation and that trial counsel erred in failing to object when there was "no evidence in the record that Brown ever receiv | 2 | 2 |
Mattox v. Stategreen2 sentences2021In Mattox v. State, the trial court allowed the State to cross-examine the defendant with regard to her post-arrest silence over a defense objection. 395 S.E.2d 288, 289 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). 2021In Mattox v. State, the trial court allowed the State to cross-examine the defendant with regard to her post-arrest silence over a defense objection. 395 S.E.2d 288, 289 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta 2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta | 2 | 2 |
Edmond v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta 2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hollidaygreen2 sentences2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta 2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta | 2 | 2 |
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta 2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta | 2 | 2 |
State v. Reidgreen2 sentences2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta 2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pickensgreen2 sentences2005When an alleged violation of this constitutional right has taken place, also referred to as a Doyle violation, the court must apply the harmless error analysis articulated in State v. Pickens , 320 S.C. 528 , 466 S.E.2d 364 (1996). 2005When an alleged violation of this constitutional right has taken place, also referred to as a Doyle violation, the court must apply the harmless error analysis articulated in State v. Pickens , 320 S.C. 528 , 466 S.E.2d 364 (1996). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Truesdalegreen2 sentences2004Issue 2: State v. Truesdale , 285 S.C. 13 , 328 S.E.2d 53 (1984) (where review of the entire record establishes error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction will not be overturned for a Doyle violation), rev’d in part on other grounds , Truesdale v. Aiken , 480 U.S. 527 , 107 S.Ct. 1394 , 94 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). 2004Issue 2: State v. Truesdale , 285 S.C. 13 , 328 S.E.2d 53 (1984) (where review of the entire record establishes error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction will not be overturned for a Doyle violation), rev’d in part on other grounds , Truesdale v. Aiken , 480 U.S. 527 , 107 S.Ct. 1394 , 94 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). | 1 | 4 |
State v. McIntoshgreen2 sentences2014After a review of the direct appeal issue briefed, whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner's motion for a mistrial, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 (1976) (holding it is a violation of due process for a defendant's post-Miranda1 silence to be used against him at trial for impeachment purposes); State v. McIntosh, 358 S.C. 432, 447 , 595 S.E.2d 484, 492 (2004) ("When a Doyle violation occurs, the conviction still may be upheld when a review of the entire record establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the error w 2014After a review of the direct appeal issue briefed, whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner's motion for a mistrial, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 (1976) (holding it is a violation of due process for a defendant's post-Miranda1 silence to be used against him at trial for impeachment purposes); State v. McIntosh, 358 S.C. 432, 447 , 595 S.E.2d 484, 492 (2004) ("When a Doyle violation occurs, the conviction still may be upheld when a review of the entire record establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the error w | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gatesgreen2 sentences1984Shaw, supra, while approving the standards set out in Chapman, supra, for evaluating whether a Doyle violation is reversible error, holds that the determination must be made on a case-by-case analysis, citing Davis, supra. Our Court has held that testimony concerning a defendant’s refusal to give a statement to an officer, if error, would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where defendant’s “uncorroborated version of his part in the robbery was obviously incredible and the jury understandably did not believe him.” State v. Gates, supra 269 S. C. at 561, 238 S. E. (2d) 680 . 1984Shaw, supra, while approving the standards set out in Chapman, supra, for evaluating whether a Doyle violation is reversible error, holds that the determination must be made on a case-by-case analysis, citing Davis, supra. Our Court has held that testimony concerning a defendant’s refusal to give a statement to an officer, if error, would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where defendant’s “uncorroborated version of his part in the robbery was obviously incredible and the jury understandably did not believe him.” State v. Gates, supra 269 S. C. at 561, 238 S. E. (2d) 680 . | 1 | 2 |
Rhode Island v. Innisgreen2 sentences2023See Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 763 (1987) (stating where there is no question the defendant received Miranda warnings, "this prerequisite of a Doyle violation was met"); see also Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 (1980) (explaining that Miranda warnings "are required not where a suspect is simply taken into custody, but rather where a suspect in custody is subjected to interrogation"). 2023See Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 763 (1987) (stating where there is no question the defendant received Miranda warnings, "this prerequisite of a Doyle violation was met"); see also Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 (1980) (explaining that Miranda warnings "are required not where a suspect is simply taken into custody, but rather where a suspect in custody is subjected to interrogation"). | 1 | 1 |
Doyle v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2014After a review of the direct appeal issue briefed, whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner's motion for a mistrial, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 (1976) (holding it is a violation of due process for a defendant's post-Miranda1 silence to be used against him at trial for impeachment purposes); State v. McIntosh, 358 S.C. 432, 447 , 595 S.E.2d 484, 492 (2004) ("When a Doyle violation occurs, the conviction still may be upheld when a review of the entire record establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the error w 2014After a review of the direct appeal issue briefed, whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner's motion for a mistrial, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 (1976) (holding it is a violation of due process for a defendant's post-Miranda1 silence to be used against him at trial for impeachment purposes); State v. McIntosh, 358 S.C. 432, 447 , 595 S.E.2d 484, 492 (2004) ("When a Doyle violation occurs, the conviction still may be upheld when a review of the entire record establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the error w | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mizzellgreen2 sentences2014After a review of the direct appeal issue briefed, whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner's motion for a mistrial, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 (1976) (holding it is a violation of due process for a defendant's post-Miranda1 silence to be used against him at trial for impeachment purposes); State v. McIntosh, 358 S.C. 432, 447 , 595 S.E.2d 484, 492 (2004) ("When a Doyle violation occurs, the conviction still may be upheld when a review of the entire record establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the error w 2014After a review of the direct appeal issue briefed, whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner's motion for a mistrial, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 (1976) (holding it is a violation of due process for a defendant's post-Miranda1 silence to be used against him at trial for impeachment purposes); State v. McIntosh, 358 S.C. 432, 447 , 595 S.E.2d 484, 492 (2004) ("When a Doyle violation occurs, the conviction still may be upheld when a review of the entire record establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the error w | 1 | 1 |
State v. Arthergreen2 sentences2012Despite Williams’ failure to object to these subsequent instances, we review the entire record in determining whether the misconduct is sufficient to warrant reversal. 2 See State v. Arther, 290 S.C. 291 , 296, 350 S.E.2d 187, 190 (1986) (holding a Doyle violation “does not require reversal of a conviction if a review of the entire record establishes that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”) (emphasis added). 2012Despite Williams’ failure to object to these subsequent instances, we review the entire record in determining whether the misconduct is sufficient to warrant reversal. 2 See State v. Arther, 290 S.C. 291 , 296, 350 S.E.2d 187, 190 (1986) (holding a Doyle violation “does not require reversal of a conviction if a review of the entire record establishes that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Fletcher v. Weirgreen2 sentences2007See also Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 763 , 107 S.Ct. 3102 , 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (the Miranda warnings' implicit assurance provides "the prerequisite of a Doyle violation"). *476 In a case setting the precedent for Brecht, the United States Supreme Court in Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 , 102 S.Ct. 1309 , 71 L.Ed.2d 490 (1982), guarded against the expansion of Doyle . 2007See also Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 763 , 107 S.Ct. 3102 , 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (the Miranda warnings' implicit assurance provides "the prerequisite of a Doyle violation"). *476 In a case setting the precedent for Brecht, the United States Supreme Court in Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 , 102 S.Ct. 1309 , 71 L.Ed.2d 490 (1982), guarded against the expansion of Doyle . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta 2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 194 , 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (appellant has burden to provide a sufficient record for review). 2007See, e.g., State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 194 , 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (appellant has burden to provide a sufficient record for review). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta 2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Revelesgreen1 sentence2004See e.g., Kibbe v. DuBois, 269 F.3d 26, 34-35 (1st Cir.2001) (explaining Doyle is not violated when defendant opens the door to cross-examination on post-arrest silence by testifying on direct he told police what had happened and lawyer stated the same in opening and closing); United States v. Reveles, 190 F.3d 678, 684-685 (5th Cir.1999) (finding no Doyle violation because “[w]hen a defendant attempts to convince a jury that he was of a cooperative spirit, Doyle does not tie the hands of prosecutors who attempt to rebut this presentation by pointing to a lack of cooperation”); Earnest v. Dors | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
Ralph Rodney Earnest v. Donald Dorsey, Attorney General of the State of New Mexicogreen1 sentence2004See e.g., Kibbe v. DuBois, 269 F.3d 26, 34-35 (1st Cir.2001) (explaining Doyle is not violated when defendant opens the door to cross-examination on post-arrest silence by testifying on direct he told police what had happened and lawyer stated the same in opening and closing); United States v. Reveles, 190 F.3d 678, 684-685 (5th Cir.1999) (finding no Doyle violation because “[w]hen a defendant attempts to convince a jury that he was of a cooperative spirit, Doyle does not tie the hands of prosecutors who attempt to rebut this presentation by pointing to a lack of cooperation”); Earnest v. Dors | 1 | 1 |
Kibbe v. Duboisgreen1 sentence2004See e.g., Kibbe v. DuBois, 269 F.3d 26, 34-35 (1st Cir.2001) (explaining Doyle is not violated when defendant opens the door to cross-examination on post-arrest silence by testifying on direct he told police what had happened and lawyer stated the same in opening and closing); United States v. Reveles, 190 F.3d 678, 684-685 (5th Cir.1999) (finding no Doyle violation because “[w]hen a defendant attempts to convince a jury that he was of a cooperative spirit, Doyle does not tie the hands of prosecutors who attempt to rebut this presentation by pointing to a lack of cooperation”); Earnest v. Dors | 1 | 1 |
State v. Graygreen2 sentences2004See Edmond, 341 S.C. 340 , 534 S.E.2d 682 (granting new trial to applicant in post-conviction relief action where testimony and prosecutor’s closing improperly referred to defendant’s exercise of right to remain silent and right to counsel); see also State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74 , 476 S.E.2d 695 (1996) (finding Doyle violation when officer, after arresting defendant and advising him of his Miranda rights, was asked whether defendant inquired about the condition of his passengers after an accident; granting new trial as it was not harmless error), overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 34 2004See Edmond, 341 S.C. 340 , 534 S.E.2d 682 (granting new trial to applicant in post-conviction relief action where testimony and prosecutor’s closing improperly referred to defendant’s exercise of right to remain silent and right to counsel); see also State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74 , 476 S.E.2d 695 (1996) (finding Doyle violation when officer, after arresting defendant and advising him of his Miranda rights, was asked whether defendant inquired about the condition of his passengers after an accident; granting new trial as it was not harmless error), overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 34 | 1 | 1 |
| Wentz v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Watson
green
2 sentences2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta 2007See also Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 345 , 534 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2000) (relying on Doyle, state may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent); State v. Reid, 324 S.C. 74, 78 , 476 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1996) ("It is a violation of due process for a State to permit comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence since the giving of Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant his silence will not be used against him.") (overruled on other grounds by State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372 , 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)); Sta | 2 | 2004–2007 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2023We take the opportunity, however, to clarify the proper procedure when a potential Doyle violation arises and vacate the 1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). portion of the court of appeals' opinion dealing with this issue. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. White
green
2 sentences2005State v. White, 361 S.C. 407 , 605 S.E.2d 540 (2004), involves a defendant convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping. 2005State v. White, 361 S.C. 407 , 605 S.E.2d 540 (2004), involves a defendant convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States of America, Ex Rel., Larry Saulsbury v. James Greer, Warden, Menard, Michael Lane, Director of the Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2004Saulsbury v. Greer, 702 F.2d 651 (7th Cir.1983) (finding no Doyle violation where defendant opened the door to cross-examination on post-arrest silence by testifying on direct he did not make a statement to *446 the sheriff because it could be used against him and, since he was on parole, he did not think the sheriff would believe him); Wentz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 351, 362 (Ind.2002) (finding no Doyle violation because defendant opened the door to cross-examination on post-arrest silence by testifying on redirect he had answered all the police’s questions). 2004Saulsbury v. Greer, 702 F.2d 651 (7th Cir.1983) (finding no Doyle violation where defendant opened the door to cross-examination on post-arrest silence by testifying on direct he did not make a statement to *446 the sheriff because it could be used against him and, since he was on parole, he did not think the sheriff would believe him); Wentz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 351, 362 (Ind.2002) (finding no Doyle violation because defendant opened the door to cross-examination on post-arrest silence by testifying on redirect he had answered all the police’s questions). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Truesdale v. Aiken green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| McFadden v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Caldwell green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Dawkins green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Anderson v. Charles green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Prince green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Brecht v. Abrahamson green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Kotteakos v. United States green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.