"To waive his right to not have the State comment on the exercise of his right to silence, a defendant must make a statement obviously related to something, and then the waiver is only as to the subject matter of that statement. " State v. Crow , 728 S.W.2d 229, 232 (Mo. App. 1987) (emphasis added) (citing Anderson v. Charles , 447 U.S. 404, 408, 100 S.Ct. 2180, 65 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980) ); see alsoBrooks , 304 S.W.3d at 134 (citing Crow for same proposition) and State v. Weicht , 835 S.W.2d 485, 488 (Mo. App. 1992) (holding that a defendant did not waive his right to not have the State comment on his failure to provide an exculpatory statement when, even though he made post-arrest statements to police, the defendant's statements did not address the charges against him). Here, while Defendant answered several interrogation questions, Defendant affirmatively refused to address the specifics of the accusations against him.
Defendant, having previously been advised of his right to remain silent, never attempted to invoke that right. Having been taken into custody, advised of his right to remain silent, and acknowledging his understanding of his right to remain silent, Defendant chose to answer Sergeant Eakers' questions. By answering these questions, Defendant elected not to remain silent. "'If, however, the defendant answers questions or makes a statement while in custody, the right to remain silent and not have the State comment on that silence is waived as to the subject matter of those statements.'" State v. Weicht, 835 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Mo.App. 1992) (quoting State v. Crow, 728 S.W.2d 229, 230 (Mo.App. 1987)). Therefore, the State could fairly comment on Defendant's statements as well as the context of such statements.
Thus, we use analogous criminal cases regarding the admissibility of an accused's statements. See State v. Crow, 728 S.W.2d 229, 230 (Mo.App. 1987); State v. Weicht, 835 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Mo.App. 1992). Moore made several statements about his prior civil commitment to Trinity personnel.