At the close of all the evidence, the jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree murder and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In his first point, Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and objection at trial to the admission of Defendant's statements to Detective Wild. Defendant asserts the statements were obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Because the police were aware that he was represented by counsel in his juvenile proceeding, they violated his rights by not contacting his attorney prior to taking the statements. Review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is limited to determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's decision.
Deference is given to the trial court's superior opportunity to determine credibility of witnesses.
As in all matters, a reviewing court gives deference to the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations but reviews questions of law de novo. The issue of whether the Sixth Amendment has been violated is a question of law, and therefore, we review de novo. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only at or after the time that adversary judicial proceeding have been initiated against a person. Attachment of the right to counsel occurs at the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings against an accused by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. Once the right has been invoked, subsequent waiver during a police-initiated custodial interview is invalid.