### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

ON MOTION F OR REHEARING

NO. 03-0 6 -00 330 -CR

The St at e of Te xa s , A ppe lla nt

v. Milton Dwayn e G obert, A ppellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 331S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D1DC06- 9040 06 , HO NORAB LE B OB PERK INS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O P I N I O N
Our o pinion and judgme nt issued on October 4, 2007, are withdrawn, a nd the following opinion is subs tituted.

The State a

p p e a ls th e d is tric t c o urt’s orde r g rantingappellee Milton Dway ne Gobe rt’s motion to s uppress stateme nts. SeeTex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a) (5) ( West 2006). At iss ue is t he a dmi ssi bil ity

of Go be rt ’s vid e ota

ped c us tod ia l in te rr og a tio n b y Au sti n p oli c e of

fi c e rs . The trial c ourt determ i n ed that the of fice rs conduc ting the inter rog ation failed to honor Gober t’s invocation of the right to counsel. We conclude that the di strict court erre d by g rantingthe motion to s uppress.2 The rele vant fac ts a

re not in dispute. Gober

t, w ho was suspec ted of c ommitt ing the murder f or which he now stands i ndicted, was arr ested for a parole vi olation and for the assault of
a wo man n ame d Chri sti ne or Chr ist ina . F oll ow inghis arr e st, Go be rt wa s q ue sti on e d b y

Au sti n detec tives Bur g h and Scanlon. B urg h beg an the inter view by advising Gober

t of his constituti onal and statutory

rig hts. See M

iranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22, §§ 2, 3 (West 2005). Aske d if he unde rs t o o d h i s rig hts, Gobert re plied that he did and the n sai d, “ I do n’ t want to g ive up any ri g ht, tho ug h, if Ido n’ t g ot n o la

wye r. ” Sc anlo n im me diate ly
a sk e d, “ Yo u do n’ t wa

nt to ta lk?” Th e qu e sti on wa s r e pe a te d b y

B ur g h, “ Yo u d on ’t

wa nt t o ta lk t o us? ” Gobe rt answe red, “ Imean, I ’ll talk to y ’all. I mean, I know, y ou know, what she had said a bout it, y ou know. I ’ll speak with y ’all, but (inaudible), man. I mean, I ’ll speak w ith y ’all, y ou know.” Sc anlo n th e n s a id, “ Okay , s ig nin g thi s— sig nin g thi s is no t g ivi ngup y our r ig ht. Sig nin g thi s is
a c kn ow l e d g i n g t h a tt h i s w a s r e a d t o y o u . ” H e t h e na d d e d , “ O k ay ? Y o u r c h o i c e t o t a l k

t o u s is differ ent. This—all this is, i s acknow ledg ing that y ou wer e wa rned.” Bur g h then beg an to que stion Gobert re g ardinghis relationship with Christi na. Af ter a number of questi o n s were asked a nd answe red, Sca

nlon interrupted to ask, “ Iwant to clea r something up, thoug h, beca use ea rlier you said y ou don’t want to g ive up y our rig ht to a lawyer. I want you—Iwant y ou—Iwant to clea r up the fac t that you want to talk to us about this. Okay ? You understand what I ’m saying?” Gobe rt answe red, “ Yea h.” Scanlon c ontinued, “I want to clea

r it up. Imean, that’ s—that’s what you want to d o , ri g ht? ” Gobe rt ag ain answe red, “ Yea h.” The interrog ation continued for sever al hours and ultimately resulted in appel l an t confe ssing to the murder of Mel Ker nena Cotton.3 At issue is Gobert’s state ment, “I don’t want to give up any rig ht, though, if I don’t g ot n o la wy e r. ” The tr ia l c ourt

c on c lud e d th a t th is w a s an une qu ivo c a l invo c a tio n o f t he ri g ht t o counsel duringquestioning.

Be cause the issue prese nted is a mix ed question of law a nd fac t, we conduc t a de novo revie w. Se e Ma esta s v . S tate , 9 87 S.W. 2d

59 , 6 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); Guzma n v. Sta te , 95 5 S. W.2 d 8 5, 89 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). To e ff e c tuate the F if

th A me ndme nt p ri vil e g e a g a ins t self-inc rimination, a suspect has the rig ht to consult with a n attorney and to ha

ve counse l p re sent during custodial interrog ation, and the police must ex plain t h i s ri ght to the suspect bef ore questioning be g ins. Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). When a suspe ct asser ts his right to c ouns e l, a ll i nte rr og a tio n mu st c e a se un ti l cou ns e l is pr ov ide d o r u nti l th e su sp e c t pe rs on a lly reinitiates the c onvers at i on. Edwards v. Arizona , 4 51 U. S. 4 77 , 4 84 -8 5 ( 19 80 ); Di nk ins v . S tate , 894 S.W .2d 330, 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The suspec t’s reque st for counse l must be unambig uous, that is, he must articulate his desire to have c ounsel prese nt sufficiently clea rly that
a re asonable police off

icer in the circ umstances would unde rstand the state ment to be a reque st for an attorne y . Davis v. U

nited States , 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994). I f t he suspec t makes an a mbiguous or equivoc al re fer ence to an attorne y that a re asonable office r in the circ umstances would have understood only as possibly invoking the rig ht to counsel, questioning ne ed not ce ase. Id . To invoke the ri ght to c ouns e l, a

“ su sp e c t mu st un am biguo us ly reque st counsel.” Davis v. U nited States , 51 2 U .S. 45 2, 45 9 ( 19 94 ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; se e Di nk ins v . S tate , 8 9 4 S
. W
. 2 d 3 30, 351 (T e x. Cr im
. App
. 19 95 ) ( inv oc a tio n mu st b e c le ar a nd un a mbi g uo us ); se e als o S mi th v . I lli no is , 46 9 U .S. 91 , 9 7- 98 (s tate me nt i s e ith e r i nv oc a tio n o f ri g ht to c ouns e l or it i s n ot) . A t a

min imum,4

the suspect must make a statement that could rea sonably be interpr eted a s “an e x pr essi on of a de

sir e for the a ssistance of a

n attorney .” Mc

Ne il v . W isc on sin , 501 U.S. 171, 178 ( 1991) (e mphasis added)
. Th e inv oc a tio n mu st b e c le ar e no ug h th a t a re a sonab le off

ic e r “ in t he c ir c ums tanc e s w ou ld understand the statement to be a request for an attorney .” Da v is , 512 U.S. a t 459 (emphasis adde d). I n other wor ds, a suspec t does not invoke his rig ht to an att o rn ey i f h e m ere ly mentions the word “attorney ” or makes an e quivocal stateme nt that, in light of the c ircumstance s, would have le ad a
re a so na ble of fi c e r t o b e lie ve “ on ly that th e su sp e c t might be invoking the rig ht to counsel.” Id. ; see Dinkins , 894 S.W .2d at 351; Ro bin so n v . S tate , 851 S.W .2d 216, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). There
are no mag ic words ne eded to invoke the rig ht, but the words must communicate that the suspe ct desires to speak to someone who is an attorney
. Dinkins , 894 S.W .2d at 352. I f a suspe ct makes a n equivoca l or ambig uous statement, there is no re quirement that off icer s attempt to clarify

the statement, and the offic er s m ay co n t inue their que stioning. Da v is , 5 12 U. S. at 45 9, 46 1; se e als o Moran v

. Burbine , 4 75 U. S. 4 12 , 4 34 n. 4 ( 19 86 ) ( un le ss s us pe c t c omm un ic a te s th a t he wa

nts at t o rn ey , interrog ation can c ontinue). Althoug h it may be g ood police pra ctice f or interview ing office rs to clar ify a suspect’s ambig uous statement reg ardingcounsel, both to protec t the rig hts of the suspect a

nd to minim ize the chanc e of a confe ssion be ing suppressed due to subsequent judicial second- g uessing as to the mea ning of the suspect’ s statement, clar ifying questions a re not re quired, and the office rs have no obligation to stop que stioning. Da v is , 51 2 U .S. a t 46 1; Dinkins , 894 S.W .2d at 351-52.

We conclude that Gober

t’s statement that “I

don’t want to g ive up any rig ht, though, if Idon’t g ot no lawy er” was not an invoc ation of his rig ht to a n attorney . I t is unclear what Gober t5

was try ing to c onvey

when he made the statement, but it is clear that the statement is not an
un e qu ivo c a l re qu e st fo r c ouns e l. G ob e rt ’s state me nt m ay have c le arl y

c on ve y e d th e ide a

that he did
no t ha ve a pr e se nt inte nt t o “ g ive up any ri g ht, ” bu t it

wa s n ot a

re qu e st f or c ouns e l so a s to ha lt further interrog ation by the office rs. The word “lawyer” appea red in the state ment, but not in any
manner that could re asonably be interpr eted a s expressing a desire f or the a ssistance of c ounsel or to speak to an attorney
. Se e Da v is , 5 12 U. S. at 45 9 ( de c lin inginv itatio n to e xten d h old ingin Edwards and “r equire law enf orce ment office rs to cea se questioning immediately upon the making of an ambi g uo us or

e qu ivo c a l r e fe re nc e to a

n atto rn e y ” ). At

the ve ry mos t, G ob e rt ’s statemen t to the of fi c e rs wa s an e qu ivo c a l and ambi g uo us state me nt t

hat G ob e rt might

want to invoke his rig ht to counsel. See R obinson , 851 S.W .2d at 223-24 (question “Do I need to ta lk to a lawy er be fore I sign? ” wa s equivoca l at best); Ha rp e r v . S tate , No. 03-00-00677-CR, 2001 Tex. App. L EXI S 7497, at *4, 19 (Te x . App.—Austin Nov. 8, 2001, pet. ref ’d) ( not desig nated f

or publication) ( concluding that statement “I

don’t eve n want to talk unless I have me a lawyer and g o throug h this shit . Idon’t have to g o thro ug h th is s hit , r ig ht?” w a s ambi g uous and equ ivo c a l and did no t in vo ke ri g ht t o
c ouns e l) . M or e ov e r, a ft e r b e ingre a d h is Miranda rig hts and immediately afte r makingthe statement in question, Gobert told the police thre e times that he was willing to talk to the pol ice, indicating that h e was willing to proce ed without havingthe assistance of counse l. Dinkins , 8 9 4 S. W. 2 d a t 351 (cour ts may consider totality

of circ umstances surrounding interrog ation when de termining whether individual invoked his right to counse l). Althoug h they wer e not re q u i re d t o d o so, the offic ers eng ag ed i n t h e “go od police pra ctice” spoken of in Da v is by immediately

seekingto clarify

the meaningof Gobe rt’s statement.6 The district court’s order g rantingGober t’s motion to s uppress is over ruled a nd the
cause is remande d for f

urther pr ocee dings c onsistent with thi s opinion.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Dissenting O pinion by

J ustice Patterson Reverse d and Remande d on Motion for Rehea ring Filed: F ebrua

ry 1, 2008 Pub lis h