 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lacourse5/8/1998
t. at 53, 512 A.2d at 881.
II.
Defendant additionally contends that the prosecutor improperly adduced testimony from a State's witness commenting on defendant's constitutional right to remain silent. The witness in question, an investigator in the state's attorney's office, had testified that he contacted defendant on March 21, 1996, prior to his arrest and arraignment, to talk about the police pursuit that occurred on July 9 of the prior year. The prosecutor then inquired as follows:
"What essentially did [defendant] say to you?" The witness responded: "That if those were the type of questions that I was going to ask that I should talk to his lawyer."
Defendant raised no objection to the question or the answer at trial. Nevertheless, he now contends that the witness's response represented an unconstitutional comment upon defendant's right to remain silent. Nothing in the record indicates that defendant was under arrest or in custody when he made his remarks to the investigator. Thus, there was no error, much less plain error, in admitting the statement. See State v. Houle, 162 Vt. 41, 44-45, 642 A.2d 1178, 1181 (1994) (defendant's statement to supervisor in non-custodial and non-coercive setting did not implicate right against self-incrimination); State v. McElreavy, 157 Vt. 18, 25, 595 A.2d 1332, 1336 (1991) (right against self-incrimination did not attach under either Vermont Constitution or United States Constitution absent custodial interrogation or police-dominated atmosphere).
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
Chief Justice
|