sister states that have considered the issue are likewise divided. A significant number have ruled, on either state or federal constitutional grounds, that the state may not introduce such silence during its case in chief. See State v. Moore, 965 P.2d 174, 180-81 (Idaho 1998) (Fifth Amendment prohibits prosecution from introducing, in its case in chief, and for the sole purpose of implying guilt, evidence of a defendant’s failure to appear at scheduled police interview); Commonwealth v. Thompson, 725 N.E.2d 556, 565 (Mass. 2000) (concluding that where the defendant does not testify, federal constitution prohibits the prosecution from eliciting testimony during its case in chief regarding the defendant’s pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence); State v. Rowland, 452 N.W.2d 758, 763 (Neb. 1990) (<HOLDING>); State v. Remick, 829 A.2d 1079, 1081 (N.H.
holding that the government can use prearrest silence for impeachment purposes against a defendant because no government action induced the silence holding that impeachment by use of prearrest silence does not violate fifth or fourteenth amendments holding that substantive use of prearrest silence is contrary to fifth amendment holding that federal constitution does not permit state to use prearrest silence to imply guilt and characterizing the states argument to the contrary as nothing short of incredible holding that state constitution prohibits substantive use of prearrest silence