State v. Sprow

“Evidence commenting on a suspect’s invocation of the right to remain silent or the right to counsel may require a mistrial ‘if it raises the impermissible inference that the defendant did so because he was guilty.’” State v. Hunt, 297 Or App 597, 600-601 (2019).

Defendant appealed from a conviction for first-degree criminal trespass. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial. On appeal, Defendant argued that evidence the State presented showing he exercised his right against self-incrimination had deprived him of a fair trial. In response, the State argued a mistrial was unnecessary because the court instructed the jury to disregard the evidence. “Evidence commenting on a suspect’s invocation of the right to remain silent or the right to counsel may require a mistrial ‘if it raises the impermissible inference that the defendant did so because he was guilty.’” State v. Hunt, 297 Or App 597, 600-601 (2019). The Court held that the motion for mistrial should have been granted, because the jury instructions did not sufficiently negate the inference of guilt that could be drawn the Defendant’s decision to remain silent. Reversed and remanded.