Opinion ID: 1834950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: whether wilson was impermissibly interrogated after invoking his right to counsel?

Text: This is an area of the law that creates grave problems and is always approached with great caution by this Court. The crux of this assigned error here involves statements Wilson made to Detectives Jordan and Erickson on November 26, 1986. At the suppression hearing, Detective Jordan testified that he and Detective Erickson removed the defendant from his cell and brought him to the interview room for the purpose of questioning him concerning the murder. After being advised of his constitutional rights, Wilson refused to answer any questions and invoked his right to counsel. Detective Jordan then testified as follows: We then explained to him that at some point in time... he was going to be required to stand in a police lineup and we explained to him there that he also had the right to counsel and that he could waive that right also and go ahead and stand in a lineup without a lawyer being present. We also have a form which spells that out and he refused to sign it, stating that he would rather wait for a lawyer before he stood in a lineup... . Right after that he asked us exactly what he was being charged with and we told him he was being charged with capital murder in the stabbing death of a lady that ran the Continental Wig Shop on Bailey Avenue... . Once it was explained exactly he was charged with, he made the statement, That couldn't have been me. I was at work that day. Wilson contends that the explanation of lineup procedures constituted further interrogation in violation of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1884-85, 68 L.Ed.2d 378, 385-87 (1981). He contends that the state never ceased its questioning. This record does not indicate that the detectives explained the lineup procedures for the purpose of eliciting incriminating statements from the defendant. [T]he mere possibility of incrimination does not mean that an interrogation occurred. Woodward v. State, 533 So.2d 418, 430 (Miss. 1988); Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987). It cannot be said that the explanation of lineup procedures to Wilson constituted words or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. On this basis alone this assignment of error is without merit.