State v. Patrick M.

Summary

The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of his threatening conduct toward the victim’s romantic partner to prove motive. The court nevertheless reversed and ordered a new trial because the prosecutor’s closing arguments improperly used the defendant’s post-Miranda silence and the state failed to prove that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.