14 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tarkington v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Robinson v. State , 348 Ark. 280 , 290, 72 S.W.3d 827 , 834 (2002) ; see also Tarkington v. State , 313 Ark. 399 , 55 S.W.2d 306 (1993) (holding that there was no Doyle violation when there was no comment or question by the prosecutor about a defendant's postarrest silence but rather an inadvertent reference to the defendant's silence by a witness). 2012See Ferrell v. State, 325 Ark. 455 , 929 S.W.2d 697 (1996); see also Tarkington v. State, 313 Ark. 399 , 855 S.W.2d 306 (1993) (holding that there was no Doyle violation when there was no comment or question by the prosecutor about a defendant’s postarrest silence but instead there was an inadvertent reference to the defendant’s silence by a witness). | |4We agree with Prater that a Doyle violation occurred in this case. | 2 | 4 |
Greer v. Millergreen2 sentences2002In Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (1987), the Court held that there was no Doyle violation where a question was asked by the prosecutor that touched upon the defendant’s post-arrest silence, but was followed by an immediate objection sustained by the trial court and an admonishment to the jury that it should disregard any questions to which objections were sustained. 2002In Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 , 107 S.Ct. 3102 , 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987), the Court held that there was no Doyle violation where a question was asked by the prosecutor that touched upon the defendant's post-arrest silence, but was followed by an immediate objection sustained by the trial court and an admonishment to the jury that it should disregard any questions to which objections were sustained. | 1 | 6 |
McIntosh v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Our decision in McIntosh v. State, 296 Ark. 167 , 753 S.W.2d 273 (1988), where we held that no Doyle violation had occurred, is instructive. 2012Our decision in McIntosh v. State, 296 Ark. 167 , 753 S.W.2d 273 (1988), where we held that no Doyle violation had occurred, is instructive. | 1 | 2 |
Conklin v. Missouri Pacific Railroadgreen1 sentence2019Robinson v. State , 348 Ark. 280 , 290, 72 S.W.3d 827 , 834 (2002) ; see also Tarkington v. State , 313 Ark. 399 , 55 S.W.2d 306 (1993) (holding that there was no Doyle violation when there was no comment or question by the prosecutor about a defendant's postarrest silence but rather an inadvertent reference to the defendant's silence by a witness). | 1 | 1 |
Ferrell v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Ferrell v. State, 325 Ark. 455 , 929 S.W.2d 697 (1996); see also Tarkington v. State, 313 Ark. 399 , 855 S.W.2d 306 (1993) (holding that there was no Doyle violation when there was no comment or question by the prosecutor about a defendant’s postarrest silence but instead there was an inadvertent reference to the defendant’s silence by a witness). | |4We agree with Prater that a Doyle violation occurred in this case. 2012See Ferrell v. State, 325 Ark. 455 , 929 S.W.2d 697 (1996); see also Tarkington v. State, 313 Ark. 399 , 855 S.W.2d 306 (1993) (holding that there was no Doyle violation when there was no comment or question by the prosecutor about a defendant’s postarrest silence but instead there was an inadvertent reference to the defendant’s silence by a witness). | |4We agree with Prater that a Doyle violation occurred in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Stephens v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See also, Stephens v. State, 290 Ark. 440 , 720 S.W.2d 301 (1986). 2002See also, Stephens v. State, 290 Ark. 440 , 720 S.W.2d 301 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Cagle v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Cagle v. State, 68 Ark. 2001See Cagle v. State, 68 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Ledbetter v. Taylorgreen1 sentence1999See also McIntosh v. State, 296 Ark. 167 , 753 S.W.2d 273 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1065 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. State
green
2 sentences2019Robinson v. State , 348 Ark. 280 , 290, 72 S.W.3d 827 , 834 (2002) ; see also Tarkington v. State , 313 Ark. 399 , 55 S.W.2d 306 (1993) (holding that there was no Doyle violation when there was no comment or question by the prosecutor about a defendant's postarrest silence but rather an inadvertent reference to the defendant's silence by a witness). 2019Robinson v. State , 348 Ark. 280 , 290, 72 S.W.3d 827 , 834 (2002) ; see also Tarkington v. State , 313 Ark. 399 , 55 S.W.2d 306 (1993) (holding that there was no Doyle violation when there was no comment or question by the prosecutor about a defendant's postarrest silence but rather an inadvertent reference to the defendant's silence by a witness). | 2 | 2012–2019 |
McFarland v. State
green
2 sentences2013McFarland v. State, 337 Ark. 386 , 989 S.W.2d 899 (1999). 2013McFarland v. State, 337 Ark. 386 , 989 S.W.2d 899 (1999). | 2 | 1999–2013 |
Doyle v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2002A Doyle violation arises from Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), in which the defendants were cross-examined by the prosecutors about their post-Miranda silence and asked why they told an exculpatory story for the first time at trial. 2002A Doyle violation arises from Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), in which the defendants were cross-examined by the prosecutors about their post-Miranda silence and asked why they told an exculpatory story for the first time at trial. | 2 | 2002–2012 |
Sylvester v. State
green
2 sentences2019Sylvester, 2016 Ark. 136, at 11 , 489 S.W.3d at 152–53 (holding that although the witness’s comment—regarding the defendant’s request for a lawyer—was unresponsive, it was not an attempt to impeach the defendant and therefore not prohibited under Doyle). 2019Sylvester, 2016 Ark. 136, at 11 , 489 S.W.3d at 152–53 (holding that although the witness’s comment—regarding the defendant’s request for a lawyer—was unresponsive, it was not an attempt to impeach the defendant and therefore not prohibited under Doyle). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Burnett v. State
green
2 sentences2012In Burnett v. State, this court rejected an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on the failure to object to a Doyle violation. 310 Ark. 202 , 832 S.W.2d 848 (1992) (per curiam). 2012In Burnett v. State, this court rejected an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on the failure to object to a Doyle violation. 310 Ark. 202 , 832 S.W.2d 848 (1992) (per curiam). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Holden v. State
green
2 sentences1996See Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (1986); Holden v. State, 290 Ark. 458 , 721 S.W.2d 614 (1986). 1996See Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (1986); Holden v. State, 290 Ark. 458 , 721 S.W.2d 614 (1986). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hobbs v. State
green
2 sentences1987On the other hand, the violation of the Doyle doctrine was slight in Hobbs v. State, 277 Ark. 271 , 641 S.W.2d 9 (1982). 1987On the other hand, the violation of the Doyle doctrine was slight in Hobbs v. State, 277 Ark. 271 , 641 S.W.2d 9 (1982). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.