What is the current state of the law on the Miranda rights of a defendant?

Defendant contends his conviction must be reversed because of "Doyle error" (Doyle v. Ohio (1976) 426 U.S. 610, 617-619 [49 L.Ed.2d 91, 97-98]) in that evidence and argument improperly centered on defendant's invocation of his constitutional right to silence and right to an attorney. Defendant's claim is meritless.

"It is established that a person's invocation of his or her right to remain silent cannot be used as evidence of guilt. Official advice pursuant to Miranda of a person's right to remain silent carries with it an implicit assurance that `silence will carry no penalty.' [Citation.] Doyle held specifically that `it would be fundamentally unfair and a deprivation of due process to allow the arrested person's silence to be used to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial.' [Citations.] Doyle stands for the more general principle that a person's silence in apparent reliance on Miranda advice cannot be used against him or her in a criminal trial. By extension, the prosecution also cannot use a person's refusal to answer questions or his or her invocation of the right to remain silent or the right to counsel." (People v. Lopez (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1508, 1525.)

"[A] Doyle violation has two components, both of which must exist. The first element is that the prosecution makes use of a defendant's postarrest silence for impeachment purposes. Use of a defendant's postarrest silence can occur either by questioning or by reference in closing argument. The second essential element is that the trial court permits that use. [Citation.] Th[is] type of permission . . . will usually take the form of overruling a defense objection, thus conveying to the jury the unmistakable impression that what the prosecution is doing is legitimate." (People v. Evans (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 358, 368.)

With these principles in mind, we turn to the events that transpired at trial.