State of Idaho v. Walter Dee Moore
965 P.2d 174 (1998) 131 Idaho 814 (1998)
Rule of Law:
A defendant's pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence, such as the failure to attend a voluntary police interview, is admissible as substantive evidence not to directly infer guilt from the silence itself, but to provide context for other actions that collectively constitute flight and show a consciousness of guilt.
Facts:
- On May 5, 1995, five-year-old S.K. informed her parents that Walter Moore, whom she called 'Uncle Ted,' had touched her genitals at the daycare she attended.
- Moore was the father-in-law of the daycare owner and occasionally visited the daycare or helped babysit.
- Upon learning of the allegation, the day care owner asked Moore not to return but did not notify the police or S.K.'s parents.
- After S.K.'s parents contacted the police, Detective Robert Mack contacted Moore on May 17 and arranged for an interview the following afternoon.
- After the police call, Moore consulted an attorney who advised him that he did not have to speak with the police and was free to return to his home in Oregon.
- On May 18, Moore and his wife left Idaho for their home in La Pine, Oregon, without attending the scheduled police interview.
- Moore informed his employer that he had to go to Oregon to testify in a murder trial, which was a false reason for his departure.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Walter Moore on one count of lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in the district court (trial court).
- During the trial, the court overruled defense objections and admitted evidence of Moore's 'flight', including his failure to attend a scheduled police interview.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict.
- The trial court sentenced Moore to a term of twenty years in prison with seven years fixed.
- Moore filed a motion under I.C.R. 35 to reduce his sentence, which the trial court denied.
- Moore appealed his conviction and the denial of his sentence reduction motion to the Idaho Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a defendant's pre-arrest, pre-Miranda failure to attend a voluntary police interview, when offered as evidence of flight, violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Trout, C.J.
No. The admission of a defendant's pre-arrest, pre-Miranda failure to attend a voluntary police interview does not violate the Fifth Amendment when it is used as evidence of flight, rather than as a direct admission of guilt. While the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applies before arrest and Miranda warnings, it is not absolute. In this case, the testimony about Moore’s failure to meet with the detective was not used solely to imply guilt from his silence. Instead, it was admitted to provide context for his other actions—suddenly leaving the state, quitting his job, and lying to his employer—which together reasonably imply a consciousness of guilt and a desire to flee. Because the evidence was probative on the issue of flight and admitted for that limited purpose, its admission was not an error.
Dissenting - Silak, J.
Yes. The admission of the defendant's pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence in the prosecution's case-in-chief violates the Fifth Amendment. The majority creates an unsupported exception to the rule that such silence can only be used to impeach a defendant's testimony. The distinction between using silence to show 'flight' versus 'guilt' is meaningless, as evidence of flight is introduced precisely to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt. Allowing this evidence permits the prosecution to use a defendant's proper exercise of their Fifth Amendment right as a means of implying guilt, placing the accused in an untenable position where both speaking and remaining silent can be used against them.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an important precedent in Idaho law regarding the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a pre-arrest context. It permits the introduction of a defendant's silence as substantive evidence, provided it is framed as one component of a larger pattern of behavior constituting 'flight.' This ruling creates a fine, and potentially difficult, line for lower courts to draw between permissible evidence of flight and impermissible commentary on a defendant's silence as direct evidence of guilt. The decision will likely influence how prosecutors present evidence in similar cases and how defense attorneys must challenge it through motions in limine and requests for limiting jury instructions.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: State of Idaho v. Walter Dee Moore (1998)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"