SC20476 - State v. Patrick M. (“On appeal, the defendant raises four claims: (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes of conviction; (2) the prosecutor violated the proscriptions set forth in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), by improperly commenting on the defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent following his arrest and advisement of rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966); (3) the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument on the defendant’s post-Miranda silence and pretrial incarceration constituted prosecutorial improprieties that deprived the defendant of his due process right to a fair trial; and (4) the trial court improperly admitted evidence of the defendant’s prior uncharged misconduct in violation of our rules of evidence. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction but that the prosecutor improperly commented on the defendant’s post-Miranda silence. We therefore reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial.”)