State v. Mendoza, 206 N.C. App. 391 (Aug. 17, 2010)

The trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence, during its case in chief, of the defendant's pre-arrest and post-arrest, pre-Miranda warnings silence. The only permissible purpose for such evidence is impeachment; since the defendant had not yet testified when the State presented the evidence, the testimony could not have been used for that purpose. Also, the State’s use of the defendant's post-arrest, post-Miranda warnings silence was forbidden for any purpose. However, the court concluded that there was no plain error given the substantial evidence pointing to guilt.