People v. Ealy

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first-degree murder and sentenced to natural life.  State may not introduce evidence that accused exercised his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, by refusing DNA testing, because prejudicial effect substantially outweighs probative value of allowing jury to infer the accused's consciousness of guilt from his exercise of his rights. However, in this case the error was harless beyond a reasonable doubt. State introduced overwhelming circumstantial evidence of Defendant's guilt, such that prejudicial testimony that he refused DNA testing did not contribute to conviction, especially because Defendant's DNA was not found at crime scene.(HUTCHINSON and ZENOFF, concurring.)