State v. Godfrey, 2004 MT 197

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed Tracey Raymond Godfrey's conviction for felony sexual assault. The court held that although the prosecutor's questions and closing argument concerning Godfrey's explanation were inadvisable, they did not plainly comment on his post-warning silence in a manner warranting plain-error review. The court therefore declined to invoke the common-law plain-error doctrine.

Holdings

1. Doyle-type due-process protections are not limited to situations in which a police officer reads Miranda warnings at the time of arrest. A defendant may be induced to remain silent when a court advises him of the right to remain silent, including through a written acknowledgment or judicial recitation of rights.
2. The prosecutor's questioning and closing argument were inadvisable but primarily addressed the credibility and timing of Godfrey's trial account, rather than clearly commenting on his silence or implying that his silence demonstrated guilt.
3. The court declined to invoke common-law plain-error review because the challenged comments did not clearly comment on or infringe Godfrey's fundamental right to remain silent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing argument improperly commented on Godfrey's post-arrest silence or failure to provide an explanation before trial, violating due process under Doyle v. Ohio.
2. Whether the Montana Supreme Court should invoke common-law plain-error review despite trial counsel's failure to object.
3. Whether the challenged prosecutorial comments required reversal of Godfrey's conviction.

Disposition

affirmed