(1) The trial court did not err by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant Perry regarding his post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence. Defendants Perry and Powell appealed from judgments entered upon jury verdicts finding them guilty of offenses in connection with a shooting. The defendants were tried together. At trial Perry testified regarding his alibi defense. On appeal the defendants argued that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine Perry regarding his silence to the police after his arrest regarding his alibi. Although a defendant’s post-arrest, post-Miranda warning silence may not be used by the State for any purpose, a defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence may be used by the State to impeach a defendant by suggesting that the defendant’s prior silence is inconsistent with his present statements at trial. Our Supreme Court has instructed that a defendant’s silence about an alibi at the time of arrest can constitute an inconsistent statement, and that this silence can be used to impeach a defendant’s alibi offered at trial if it would have been natural for a defendant to mention the alibi at the time of his encounter with the police. Applying these rules to the case at hand, the court concluded:

[T]here was evidence which showed as follows: The offenses were perpetrated no more than 72 hours before Defendant Perry was arrested and informed of the charges against him. Defendant Perry knew the victims named in the warrant: he knew one of the victims because she was his ex-girlfriend, and he knew the other victim from hanging out in the same neighborhood. Despite Defendant Perry’s familiarity with these two victims and the location where the shooting occurred, he made no statements that he had an alibi to account for his whereabouts during the commission of the crime. When the officer charged Defendant Perry with three counts of attempted murder and three counts of injury to real or personal property, Defendant Perry failed to mention his alibi when it would have been natural to deny that he would not have attempted to kill his ex-girlfriend, her current partner, and his ex-girlfriend’s son.

Based on this evidence, we conclude that Defendant Perry’s silence is inconsistent with his later alibi testimony presented for the first time during trial. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it allowed the State to impeach Defendant Perry on cross-examination about his failure to say anything about his alibi when the warrants were read to him and before he had received Miranda warnings.

(2) Although it was error to admit evidence of Perry’s post-Miranda warnings silence about an alibi, the error did not constitute plain error for either defendant. Because the defendant failed to object to the testimony at trial, the plain error standard applied. Here no plain error occurred because there was ample evidence establishing the defendants’ guilt.