WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1997

Style: State v. Hoggins, No. 90,121

Facts: Hoggins was convicted of armed robbery. At trial, he testified in his own defense, giving an exculpatory explanation of the events leading to his arrest. On cross-examination, the prosecutor brought out the fact that Hoggins had not given the same explanation to the police when he was arrested. In argument to the jury, the prosecutor commented on the fact that the defendant's in-court explanation had not been given to the police at the time of arrest. On appeal, the district court of appeal held that the use of appellant's post-arrest, pre-Miranda warnings silence as impeachment of his testimony at trial was a denial of his constitutional rights. The state seeks review.

Issue: Whether the use of post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence as impeachment evidence violates the U.S. or Florida Constitution.