Opinion ID: 2611437
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State v. Wood

Text: In State v. Wood, 868 P.2d 70 (Utah 1993), defendant Lance Conway Wood appealed his conviction of murder in the first degree, aggravated sexual assault, and aggravated kidnaping in connection with the murder of Gordon Church in November 1988. Michael Archuleta was also involved in the murder. Shortly after the murder, Wood contacted his parole officer and informed him that Archuleta had killed someone. Wood met with his parole officer and other police officers later that day and recounted his version of the events surrounding the murder. Id. at 76. The next morning, Wood directed law enforcement officials to the scene of the murder and to Church's body. After some time at the murder scene, a police officer, Captain Robert Dekker, drove Wood to a spot under a freeway overpass. Id. at 81. Dekker then gave Wood his Miranda warnings, intending to interview Wood in relation to the murder. As soon as Dekker concluded the warnings, Wood wondered aloud whether he should consult an attorney regarding protective custody. In an effort to clarify Wood's meaning, Dekker asked whether Wood wanted an attorney for questioning purposes right now. Wood said that he did not and that he wanted to talk to Dekker. Dekker proceeded to interview and take a statement from him. Id. At trial, Wood challenged the introduction of the statement given to Dekker on the ground that his statement regarding consulting an attorney amounted to a request for counsel, barring any further questioning by Dekker. Id. at 82. This court held that Wood's reference to an attorney did not amount to an invocation of his right to counsel and that Wood had made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of that right. Id. at 83. We held that Wood's reference to an attorney accompanied by his statement regarding protective custody at least made it unclear whether he was invoking his constitutional right to counsel. Id. This court then went on to hold: [W]hen a defendant makes an ambiguous or equivocal request for an attorney, questioning with respect to the subject matter of the investigation must immediately stop, and any further questioning must be limited to clarifying the request. If the defendant then makes clear that he or she desires to have counsel present, further questioning is prohibited. Id. at 85. This court determined that Dekker had complied with this rule, and held that the trial court was correct in not granting Wood's motion to suppress. Id.