Oregon Supreme Ct. - Dec. 26, 2014

by: Frangieringer and Abassos • December 26, 2014 • no comments

Miranda – Courts Cannot Look to Evidence after Invocation to Determine If Invocation was Equivocal

To determine whether a person equivocated in invoking their right to silence pursuant to Miranda, a court cannot consider “evidence that occurred after defendant invoked that right.” Here, the trial court considered defendant’s post-invocation statement, “No, I can’t talk to you if I don’t understand what this right means because you’re telling me I have the right to remain silent. I don’t understand what this rights means,” as indicating that defendant wanted the officer to further explain the right to silence before determining whether to exercise that right. The Supreme Court, however, found that because a trial court can only consider the totality of the circumstances prior to or concurrent with the invocation to determine whether an invocation is equivocal, the trial court erred in not suppressing the subsequent incriminating statements when there was no indication, either by demeanor, gesture, or tone of voice, that defendant’s statement “I won’t answer any questions,” was an equivocal invocation that required any further questioning by the officer. Justice Kistler’s Concurrence: Does not know if Article I, Section 12 demands the holding that the majority arrived at. He believes that such a bright line rule could hamstring officers who are investigating in fluid situations. Yet, following that standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Illinois, which promulgated a standard very similar to the majority’s, this is a closed question and it would make little sense to promulgate a standard in Oregon that is less stringent than the federal one.

State v. Avila-Nava, 356 Or 600 (2014).