People v. Pinkett

This case presents question in instant aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude police officer prosecution as to whether trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for mistrial, where, according to defendant, prosecutor violated defendant’s right to remain silent by commenting on fact that defendant did not ask why arresting officer was detaining him after high-speed chase and eliciting same testimony from arresting police officer. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court and remanding matter for new trial, found that evidence of defendant’s silence during and after arrest was categorically inadmissible as substantive evidence against him. In its petition for leave to appeal, State argued that evidence of defendant’s silence during and after his arrest is not categorically inadmissible when not induced by Miranda warnings, but is subject to same admissibility standards as any other piece of evidence.