Legal Opinion

State v. Curtis

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 15, 2002No. 19607-1-IIIPublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

— The exercise of constitutionally guaranteed Miranda1 rights must be without penalty. The State penalizes a defendant for asserting those rights when it introduces evidence of the defendant’s exercise of Miranda rights as substantive evidence of guilt. In this case, the prosecutor invited an investigating officer to comment in front of a jury that the defendant chose to remain silent and consult a lawyer after being read his Miranda rights. The invitation was deliberate and implicates fundamental constitutional rights. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.

FACTS

Bobby Ray Curtis was…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Brecht v. AbrahamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Doyle v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  5. State v. McFarlandWashington Supreme Court · 1995

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. State v. BurkeWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  2. State v. RomeroCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  3. State v. RomeroCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  4. State v. DykstraCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  5. State v. DykstraCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API