State v. Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle
2023 WI 24 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's description of the State's evidence as "uncontroverted" during closing arguments does not violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination under Griffin v. California unless the comments were "manifestly intended to be" or "of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take them to be" an adverse comment on the defendant's silence, and were not a fair response to a defense argument.
Facts:
- On March 14, 2017, Hannah, then a 15-year-old minor, disclosed to Officer Joseph Nelson of the Chippewa Falls Police Department that she was sexually assaulted in February 2017.
- Investigator Kari Szotkowski of the Chippewa County Sheriff's Department interviewed Hannah on March 15, during which Hannah reported her account of the sexual assault but did not say who assaulted her.
- In May 2017, Hannah disclosed to Officer Nelson that she was assaulted by Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle, who was a stepbrother to one of Hannah's friends and 20 years old at the time of the alleged assault.
- Hannah testified that Hoyle drove her down a dead-end road, told her to get into the back seat, climbed in, pulled down her pants and underwear, sexually assaulted her, drove her home, and threatened her.
- Prior to the start of Hoyle's trial, pretrial filings indicated Hoyle did not plan to call any witnesses.
- Hoyle exercised his right under the Fifth Amendment not to testify, and the defense did not present any other witnesses.
Procedural Posture:
- Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle was arrested and charged in Chippewa County Circuit Court with two counts each of second-degree sexual assault and second-degree sexual assault of a child.
- During motions in limine before trial, the prosecutor asked the circuit court if he would be permitted to refer to the State's case as "uncontroverted" during his closing argument should Hoyle invoke his right not to testify, which the court granted over defense counsel's objection.
- The jury found Hoyle guilty on all counts in the Chippewa County Circuit Court.
- The circuit court sentenced Hoyle to eight years of initial confinement and 10 years of extended supervision.
- Hoyle filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing, among other things, that the State's repeated statements that the evidence was "uncontroverted" violated his right not to testify.
- The circuit court orally denied Hoyle's motion during a hearing, and later issued a written order denying relief.
- Hoyle appealed the circuit court's order, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the State's repeated argument that the evidence was "uncontroverted" was improper under the circumstances and violated Hoyle's Fifth Amendment right not to testify.
- The State of Wisconsin (plaintiff-respondent-petitioner) petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review, which was granted.
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 a prosecutor violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by repeatedly describing the State's evidence as "uncontroverted" in closing arguments, when the defendant exercised his right not to testify?
Opinions:
Majority - Annette Kingsland Ziegler, C.J.
No, a prosecutor does not violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights by repeatedly describing the State's evidence as "uncontroverted" in closing arguments when the defendant did not testify, because the comments in this case were not an adverse comment on Hoyle's silence. The Court reaffirmed the three-element test for Griffin violations: (1) the language must have been "manifestly intended to be" or "of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be" a comment on the defendant's failure to testify; (2) the language must be adverse, meaning it proposes that silence is evidence of guilt; and (3) the comments must not be a fair response to a defense claim. Applying this test, the Court found the prosecutor's remarks, taken in context, were meant to focus the jury on the evidence presented at trial and to prevent speculation about other possible evidence, rather than to comment on Hoyle's silence. The prosecutor reminded the jury of instructions to consider only the evidence presented and not to speculate. Furthermore, the Court concluded it was not the case that "only Hoyle could have contradicted" the State's evidence, as defense counsel explicitly identified several types of evidence not presented at trial (e.g., lack of family interviews, physical evidence, surveillance footage) that could have controverted the State's witnesses. Therefore, the jury would not have "naturally and necessarily" understood the prosecutor's statements as commenting on Hoyle's silence.
Concurring - Brian Hagedorn, J.
Justice Hagedorn joined the majority opinion, emphasizing that Griffin v. California arguably goes beyond the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause, which traditionally focused on preventing compelled testimony rather than adverse inferences from silence. He traced the historical development of the right, from the maxim nemo tenetur prodere seipsum in canon law, through the abuses of the ex officio oath in ecclesiastical and prerogative courts, and its influence on the Founders. He noted that at the time of the Fifth Amendment's adoption, criminal defendants were generally disqualified from testifying, making comments on silence irrelevant to the text's original scope. While acknowledging the duty to apply Supreme Court precedent, he argued that when asked to extend precedent with a weak foundation in the Constitution's original meaning, courts should "tread cautiously" and resolve questions about the scope of such precedents in line with the constitutional text and history. This historical context, he argued, further supported the majority's decision not to extend Griffin to the facts of the present case.
Dissenting - Rebecca Frank Dallet, J.
Yes, Justice Dallet dissented, arguing that the prosecutor violated Hoyle's Fifth Amendment rights by repeatedly characterizing the victim's testimony as "uncontroverted." She asserted that for the right against self-incrimination to be meaningful, it must prohibit both direct and indirect comments that invite a jury to infer guilt from a defendant's silence. She highlighted that when the prosecutor repeatedly calls evidence "uncontroverted" and the only person who could reasonably contradict that evidence is the defendant, the jury would "naturally and necessarily" understand this as a comment on the defendant's decision not to testify. In this case, where the assault occurred with only Hoyle and the victim present, Hoyle was the only person who could controvert the victim's account. Justice Dallet rejected the majority's assertion that the comments were not "adverse" and its argument that other hypothetical evidence could have controverted the victim's account, noting that such speculation is insufficient. She concluded that the prosecutor's relentless emphasis on the "uncontroverted" nature of the victim's testimony was not a mere reference to jury instructions, but an impermissible focus on Hoyle's silence, thus violating his constitutional rights and necessitating a new trial.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Griffin v. California in Wisconsin, particularly concerning indirect comments on a defendant's silence. By adopting a three-part test and emphasizing contextual analysis over a per se rule, the Wisconsin Supreme Court provides guidance to lower courts and prosecutors on permissible closing arguments. The ruling suggests that merely labeling evidence as "uncontroverted" is not automatically a Griffin violation, especially when other potential avenues for contradiction exist or when the comment is tied to instructions to consider only presented evidence. This approach may give prosecutors more leeway in arguing the strength of their case while placing a high bar for defendants to prove that such comments "naturally and necessarily" point to their silence and propose guilt.
