Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Supreme Court Briefs (2000– ) 2016 State of Utah, Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. James Christopher McCallie, Defendant/Respondent. Utah Supreme Court Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellant, State of Utah v. McCallie, No. 20160500 (Utah Supreme Court, 2016). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2/3292 This Brief of Appellant is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Supreme Court Briefs (2000– ) by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/ utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. Case No. 20160500-SC IN THE UTAH SUPREME COURT STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. JAMES CHRISTOPHER MCCALLIE, Defendant/Respondent. Brief of Petitioner On Writ of Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals TERA J. PETERSON (12204) Assistant Solicitor General SEAN D. REYES (7969) Utah Attorney General 160 East 300 South, 6th Floor P.O. Box 140854 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0854 SAMUEL P. NEWTON Telephone: (801) 366-0180 Law Office of Samuel P. Newton, PC The Historic KM Building CLINT T. HEINER 40 2nd Street E, Suite 222 GEORGE F. VO-DUC Kalispell, MT 59901-6113 Salt Lake District Attorney’s Office Counsel for Respondent Counsel for Petitioner TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ................................................................................ 3 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES, AND RULES ....................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................. 4 A. Summary of facts. ....................................................................................... 4 B. Summary of proceedings. .......................................................................... 9 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 19 ARGUMENT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONESOULY HELD THAT DEFENDANT’S INCONSISTENT, POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS WERE EQUIVALENT TO SILENCE UNDER DOYLE V. OHIO AND ANDERSON V. CHARLES ................................... 21 A. Doyle v. Ohio and Anderson v. Charles did not create a category of silence-equivalent statements that the State cannot use at trial. ............................................................................................................. 23 B. Defendant’s statements were not about his interrogation; they were about the crime because they amounted to a denial of his involvement. .............................................................................................. 37 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 39 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................................... 40 -i- ADDENDA Addendum A: State v. McCallie, 2016 UT App 4, 369 P.3d 103 Addendum B: Controlling United States Supreme Court Precedent: Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404 (1980) Addendum C: Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, and Rules U.S. Const. amend. V Addendum D: Defendant’s Trial Testimony, R.298:31-72 Addendum E: Closing Arguments and Mistrial Motion, R.298:91-125 -ii- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404 (1980) ........................................................ passim Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) ...................................................... 1 Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) .................................................................. passim Greico v. Hall, 641 F.2d 1029 (1st Cir. 1981) ......................................................... 30 Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957) .................................................. 29 Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714 (1975) ...................................................................... 37 Phelps v. Duckworth, 772 F.2d 1410 (7th Cir. 1985) ............................................. 36 Sallahdin v. Gibson, 275 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2002) ............................................. 33 United States v. Agee, 597 F.2d 350 (3rd Cir. 1979) ............................................. 27 United States v. Cantebury, 985 F.2d 483 (10th Cir. 1993) .................................. 30 United States v. Caruto, 532 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2008) .......................................... 30 United States v. Gomez, 725 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2013) ......................................... 37 United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171 (1975) ............................................................. 29 United States v. May, 52 F.3d 885 (10th Cir. 1995) .............................................. 33 United States v. Ochoa-Sanchez, 676 F.2d 1283 (9th Cir. 1982) ........................... 33 STATE CASES Commonwealth v. Hunsberger, 565 A.2d 152 (Penn. 1989) ............................ 34, 36 People v. McReavy, 462 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1990) ................................................... 27 -iii- Reynolds v. State, 114 So.3d 61 (Ala. App. 2010) ................................................ 29 Salt Lake City v. Carrera, 2015 UT 73, 358 P.3d 1067 ............................................ 3 Shaw v. State, 2014 WL 3559389 (Ala. App. 2014) ....................................... 35, 36 State v. Boyd, 992 A.2d 1071 (Conn. 2010)..................................................... 32, 36 State v. Harrison, 805 P.2d 769 (Utah App. 1991) ............................................... 33 State v. Kruger, 2000 UT 60, 6 P.3d 1116 .................................................... 4, 5, 6, 8 State v. Lee, 967 A.2d 1161 (Vt. 2008) ............................................................. 34, 36 State v. Maas, 1999 UT App 325, 991 P.2d 1108 ................................................. 38 State v. McCallie, 2016 UT App 4, 369 P.3d 103................ 1, 16, 17, 25, 28, 29, 36 State v. Sorrels, 642 P.2d 373 (Utah 1982) ............................................................ 39 State v. Tucker, 709 P.2d 313 (Utah 1985) ............................................................ 30 State v. Velarde, 675 P.2d 1194 (Utah 1984) ................................................... 31, 33 State v. Winward, 941 P.2d 627 (Utah App. 1997) .............................................. 35 FEDERAL STATUTES U.S. Const. amend. V .................................................................................... ii, 3, 23 STATE STATUTES Utah Code Ann. § 78A-3-102 (West Supp. 2016) ................................................ 1 -iv- Case No. 20160500-SC IN THE UTAH SUPREME COURT STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. JAMES CHRISTOPHER MCCALLIE, Defendant/Respondent. Brief of Petitioner STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This case is before the Court on a writ of certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals in State v. McCallie, 2016 UT App 4, 369 P.3d 103 (Addendum A). The Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Utah Code Ann. § 78A-3-102(3) (West Supp. 2016). INTRODUCTION Fifty years ago, Miranda v. Arizona required police to warn a person they are about to question that (1) the person has the right not to talk to them, and (2) if he does talk to them, anything he says can and will be used against him in court. Since then, Miranda warnings have “become so embedded in routine police practice [that they] have become part of our national culture.” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 443 (2000). But despite the universal understanding that anything a person says to police will be used against him in court, the court of appeals has now held that many things a person says to police actually cannot be used against him in court. And this is true, the court of appeals concluded, even when the statements conflict with the defendant’s trial testimony. Under Doyle v. Ohio, a person who chooses to exercise his right not to talk to police cannot have his silence used to impeach his testimony at trial. According to the court of appeals, silence includes statements about the interrogation rather than about the crime. Here, Defendant did not choose to exercise his right not to talk to police when they tried to question him about a shooting that had happened only moments before they arrested him. Instead, he demanded to know why police were questioning him, claimed that the police had awakened him, and professed to be unaware that the shooting had happened. Then at trial, he admitted that he knew about the shooting, but claimed the victim was shot accidentally after he pulled his gun in self-defense. The State used his post-Miranda protestations of ignorance of any shooting at all to impeach his trial admission to a shooting done while he was acting in self-defense. The court of appeals held this was error, reasoning that the statements were the same as silence because,