State v. Nieves

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 3040

Syllabus

Post-arrest silence Miranda rights hearsay cross-examination invited error prosecutorial misconduct. - Prosecutor could properly cross-examine defendant about his post-arrest silence where the record contained nothing indicating he was advised of his Miranda rights during the time he remained silent. Appellant's statement in a text about what happened was an admission by a party-opponent. Appellant could not challenge as hearsay testimony defense counsel elicited from the state's witness on cross-examination. The prosecutor's comment during cross-examination that defendant was lying and questions whether defendant or the state's witnesses were lying were improper but did not permeate the entire trial so as to deny defendant a fair trial, and defendant did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have been acquitted but for the improper comments.