Opinion ID: 835779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of Defendant's Waiver of Right to Have Counsel Present at Custodial Interrogation

Text: We first consider whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to counsel under Article I, section 12, and the Fifth Amendment at the time when he made the challenged statements to George and Doney. To be valid under both the state and federal constitutions, a waiver of the right to counsel must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. State v. Joslin, 332 Or. 373, 386, 29 P.3d 1112 (2001) (Article I, section 12); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) (Fifth Amendment). Although we are bound by its findings of historical fact, we review a trial court's conclusions regarding a defendant's waiver of the right to counsel for legal error. State v. Montez, 309 Or. 564, 571-73, 789 P.2d 1352 (1990). Consistently with our usual practice, we begin by considering defendant's arguments under the Oregon Constitution. See State v. Kennedy, 295 Or. 260, 262, 666 P.2d 1316 (1983) (court considers all questions of state law before reaching federal constitutional claims). This court previously has held that, when a suspect in custody unequivocally asserts his or her right to counsel, then the police must cease further questioning and grant the suspect's request for a lawyer. State v. Kell, 303 Or. 89, 95-100, 734 P.2d 334 (1987). As explained in Montez, this court adopted that rule to protect a suspect in custody from being `badgered' by the police. 309 Or. at 572, 789 P.2d 1352 (quoting Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1044, 103 S.Ct. 2830, 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983)). After a suspect in custody asserts the right to counsel, however, the suspect remains free to waive that right by initiating further contact with the police. Kell, 303 Or. at 95-100, 734 P.2d 334. The trial court in this case concluded that defendant made an unequivocal request for counsel when he told Newell and Skinner, I think that I do need a lawyer. I do. The trial court also concluded that, despite defendant's unequivocal request, those detectives failed to cease the interrogation. We agree with both of those legal conclusions. See State v. Charboneau, 323 Or. 38, 55, 913 P.2d 308 (1996) (court examines whether defendant's request for lawyer unequivocal as matter of law); Montez, 309 Or. at 572-73, 789 P.2d 1352 (examining whether officer's questions constituted continued interrogation as matter of law). Defendant's statement, when viewed in its entirety, expressed unambiguously that he wished to speak with a lawyer before talking to the detectives. Although Newell and Skinner appeared to recognize defendant's intent in making that statement, they nevertheless continued to probe defendant by repeatedly expressing curiosity about his motive for the crimes and by informing defendant that they were interested in hearing defendant's side of the story. As the trial court observed, defendant did not respond to that probing by making any further inculpatory statements to Newell and Skinner. Defendant nevertheless argues, however, that the failure of Newell and Skinner to cease the interrogation and provide him with a lawyer rendered his subsequent statements to George and Doney inadmissible. Although he acknowledges that he initiated that subsequent police contact, defendant contends that he did so only because Newell and Skinner's failure to provide him with a lawyer had caused him to think that his attempt to gain counsel was futile, and that he might as well talk to the police. We are unpersuaded by defendant's argument. Although Newell and Skinner unlawfully continued the first interview after defendant had invoked his right to counsel, that unlawful conduct did not induce defendant's subsequent statements to George and Doney. Instead, the police left defendant alone after terminating that first interview, and defendant himself reinitiated contact with the Medford detectives after having no further police contact for the period of one hour. When George and Doney responded to defendant's request to speak with the detectives, they again ensured that defendant understood that he had the right to remain silent and to have counsel present for any police interrogation. Defendant confirmed that he understood those rights and then asked the detectives what they wished to know about the crimes. Although it is true that George and Doney met with defendant before any effort had been made to secure a lawyer for him, nothing in the record suggests that defendant reinitiated contact with the police because he believed that the police would not fulfill that request. Indeed, as noted above, George and Doney began the interview by confirming that defendant understood that he had the right to counsel, and Newell and Skinner also had informed defendant that he would have a hearing before a judge that same day. We further reject defendant's suggestion that the passage of an hour's time gave rise to a reasonable inference that the police had planned to deny defendant's request for counsel. In view of the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel under Article I, section 12, before making the challenged statements to George and Doney. We reach that same conclusion when we consider defendant's arguments under the Fifth Amendment. Similarly to this court, the United States Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment requires the police to cease all questioning after a suspect invokes his or her right to counsel, unless the suspect initiates further contact on his or her own. Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484, 101 S.Ct. 1880. As described above, defendant here initiated the interview with George and Doney without any police prompting. In addition, as the trial court stressed, defendant did not make any inculpatory statements in response to Newell and Skinner's probing after he had invoked his right to counsel. Cf. Missouri v. Seibert, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004) (recitation of Miranda warnings insufficient to render confession admissible under Fifth Amendment when warnings came during same interrogation in which defendant already had made essentially same confession before receiving any warnings). In sum, the trial court did not err in rejecting defendant's argument that his statements were inadmissible because they had been obtained in violation of his right to counsel under Article I, section 12, and the Fifth Amendment.