POLICE / PROSECUTOR UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 1998
Miranda "Interrogation" (Request for Attorney)
The Indiana Supreme Court recently decided a case in which one of the issues was
what constitutes "interrogation" for purposes of Miranda.
The necessary facts for purposes of discussion of this issue are that the
defendant was arrested for murder and brought to an office in the police station
where he was read his Miranda rights and signed a rights waiver form. The
interrogating officer asked him "if he wanted to talk to me about the incident or why
he was there." At that point, the defendant hesitated and said, "I think it would be in
my best interest to talk to an attorney." The officer acknowledged that the defendant
had that right but nevertheless continued, saying he wanted to explain to the
defendant the facts of the case and then told the defendant of the evidence against
him. The defendant then interrupted the officer's recitation and confessed to the
killing but claimed it was in self defense. The officer then turned on a video camera
and asked the defendant to repeat this story, which resulted in a detailed videotape
that was later played to the jury.
The Supreme Court stated that the officer's continued discussion of the case was
in "blatant disregard" of the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to counsel, which
requires that once a suspect requests an attorney, all interrogation must cease. The
State contended that the officer's recitation of the evidence was not an "interrogation"
for purposes of Miranda because no questions were asked. However, this is not the
law. The test for whether police "interrogate" a suspect is not whether questions are
asked but whether the police should know that their words or actions are "reasonably
likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect." Here, the Court stated
that the officer's monologue about the discovery of incriminating evidence had no
apparent purpose other than to induce the defendant to say something incriminating.
Therefore, confronting the defendant in an interrogation room with incriminating
evidence was "interrogation" for purposes of Miranda.
The prosecution also argued that the defendant's confession should be
admissible because his request for counsel was not clear and unequivocal. As
discussed in Issue No. 74 of the PPU, under both the federal and Indiana
constitutions a request for assistance of counsel, to be valid, must be clear and
unequivocal. In the past, courts have held that statements such as "maybe I should
talk to a lawyer," and "I guess I really want a lawyer, but . . . I don't know," were not
valid because they were not clear and unambiguous requests for counsel. Rather,
the statements were qualified by expressions of doubt. In the present case, the
defendant's statement, in the court's view, was an unequivocal request for counsel.
It was an affirmative declaration of his desire to secure his "best interests." Even the
interrogating officer understood it to be a request for counsel when he acknowledged
to the defendant that "that's fine, that's your right."
Alford v. State, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 08/19/98)
This is a publication of the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, covering
various topics of interest to law enforcement officers. It is directed
solely toward issues of evidence, criminal law and procedure. Please
consult your city, town, or county attorney for legal advice relating to
civil liability. Please direct any suggestions you may have for future
issues to Steve Stewart at 285-6264.