Opinion ID: 2218929
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Michigan v. Mosley

Text: Buie asserts that his right to cut off questioning was not scrupulously honored as required by Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). In Mosley, after advising Mosley of his Miranda rights, a robbery detective questioned him about some robberies. When Mosley said he did not want to answer any more questions about the robberies, the officer ceased questioning him. About two hours later, Mosley was brought to an interview with a homicide detective, who read him his Miranda rights a second time. Mosley said he understood his rights and signed a waiver form. The homicide detective proceeded to ask Mosley questions about a murder. Without asking for a lawyer or indicating that he did not wish to answer any more questions, Mosley proceeded to implicate himself in the murder under discussion. The United States Supreme Court concluded that the facts in Mosley did not present a case where the police failed to honor a decision of a person in custody to cut off questioning, either by refusing to discontinue the interrogation upon request or by persisting in repeated efforts to wear down his resistance and make him change his mind.... [T]he police here immediately ceased the interrogation, resumed questioning only after the passage of a significant period of time and the provision of a fresh set of warnings, and restricted the second interrogation to a crime that had not been the subject of the earlier interrogation. [13] 423 U.S. at 105-106, 96 S.Ct. at 327. In this case, Buie never requested that questioning cease. Indeed, during the first interrogation session following his arrest, he said he did not know anything about the murder and consented to undergo the stress test. It is true that at half past noon on the twenty-second, after Officer Wright had read him his rights again and asked if he wanted to make any statement concerning why he was there, (R. 462), Buie unequivocally said No. But in light of the consent to the stress test that Buie had given Officer Wright personally the evening before, we think it cannot fairly be said that Officer Wright was engaging in repeated efforts to wear down Buie's resistance and get him to change his mind. Officer Wright was, rather, merely attempting to discover if Buie had changed his mind since the evening before about taking the stress test. Indeed, the circumstances of this case show that the police did in fact scrupulously honor Buie's right to cut off questioning and to control the circumstances and timing of any questioning that was to take place. Buie was given Miranda warnings at every turn. Twice he signed waiver forms. When Officer Wright asked Buie if he wanted to make a statement and Buie said No, Officer Wright made no further attempt to obtain a statement. During the ride to New Castle, when Buie initially offered information about burglaries and then remained silent in response to a Miranda warning, the police did not press him for more information about the burglaries. Buie was warned both before taking the stress test and before giving the video-taped statement. Before the stress test he signed a waiver form. Lastly, there were significant periods of time between interrogation sessions, with an hour's pause during the afternoon stress tests. The trial court properly admitted Buie's drawings and video-taped statement.