Opinion ID: 1971058
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Invocation of the Miranda Right to Remain Silent

Text: [¶ 38] The State argues, and the court found, that Grant's refusal to answer questions during the 1:42 P.M. interview was too ambiguous, when viewed in the light of his previous refusals, to constitute an invocation of his Miranda right to remain silent. State v. King, 1998 ME 60, ¶ 9, 708 A.2d 1014, 1017 (holding that an invocation of the right to remain silent must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable police officer would understand the statement to be an assertion of the right to remain silent). [6] We disagree. There was nothing ambiguous in Grant's invocation of his rights during the 1:42 P.M. interview. After the detective recited Grant's Miranda rights and asked him if he wished to answer questions, Grant answered, No, three times and stated, I don't want to answer any questions. The detective, recognizing Grant's refusal to answer questions, appropriately ceased the questioning. [¶ 39] Although the interrogating detective testified at the suppression hearing that he had assumed, without asking, that Grant's refusal to speak was because of his sore throat, we conclude that the statements were clear refusals to submit to questioning, and nothing in the record suggests otherwise. See Davis, 512 U.S. at 461, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (noting that it is good police practice to clarify whether a suspect is asserting the Miranda rights); State v. Alley, 2004 ME 10, ¶ 28, 841 A.2d 803, 811. Thus, because Grant unambiguously asserted his Miranda right to remain silent during the 1:42 P.M. interrogation, while he was in custody, we must determine whether the police scrupulously honored his invocation of the right to remain silent before Grant made his incriminating statements on December 2. See Holloway, 2000 ME 172, ¶ 12, 760 A.2d at 228.