State of Arizona, Appellee v. Pete J. Vanwinkle, Appellant

Summary

The court held that using a defendant’s post-custody, pre-warning silence as evidence of guilt, and commenting on that silence, violates the constitutional right to remain silent even when the silence follows a civilian accusation rather than police interrogation. The error was nevertheless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the remaining evidence strongly established guilt. The court therefore vacated the intermediate appellate decision but affirmed the convictions and sentences.