How have the courts treated statements he made after his arrest in a sexual assault case?

On appeal, defendant raises two contentions regarding statements he made after his arrest. First, he contends the prosecutor improperly relied on defendant's assertion of his right to remain silent, commonly referred to as Doyle error. (See Doyle v. Ohio (1976) 426 U.S. 610 [49 L.Ed.2d 91] (Doyle).) Second, he contends the trial court improperly allowed the introduction of bad character evidence, specifically, defendant's statement that he is an alcoholic and "drinks to black out[.]" Conceding trial counsel did not preserve these claims, defendant contends we should reach them under the rubric of incompetence of counsel. We need not address the competency of counsel because we reach the merits of defendant's claims and find no prejudicial error. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.