Opinion ID: 2623122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Invocation of Miranda rights

Text: Holmes conversed with the detectives during the initial interrogation, but when they reached the point of questions regarding details of the shooting, he shook his head and said, I think I'll just quit talking, I don't know. Mumma took Holmes' statement to mean that he was uneasy about the line of questioning and that he did not appear comfortable with the direction the conversation was taking. Mumma moved the interrogation in another direction, and Holmes continued to talk. The court ruled that Holmes' statements were all voluntary. Holmes' pro se motion alleged that Detective Schroeder testified that Holmes never expressed his desire to stop talking to the detectives. However, Schroeder testified during the first suppression hearing that Holmes said, `I think I'll quit talking' and `I don't know.' And that's when Mumma said, `Would you like to talk about something else?' and [Holmes] said, `Yes.' Holmes' brief does not specifically address this issue, but his pro se motion to suppress alleges that the detectives failed to honor his invocation of Miranda rights when they continued to interrogate him after he expressed a desire to stop talking. He contends that the statements regarding the shooting should have been suppressed. The State responds by classifying his statement as an ambiguous request and, thus, the detectives were not required to stop to clarify his statement. Holmes' failure to provide the court with the original and redacted videotape or the transcript of the interrogation makes resolution of this issue difficult; the absence of such a record creates a presumption that the action of the trial court was proper. See State v. Navarro, 272 Kan. 573, 588, 35 P.3d 802 (2001). A suspect must unambiguously request counsel so that a reasonable police officer in those circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. State v. Ninci, 262 Kan. 21, 41, 936 P.2d 1364 (1997). The same rule applies to the right to remain silent. State v. Donesay, 265 Kan. 60, 73, 959 P.2d 862 (1998). When a suspect makes a statement which might be ambiguous as to whether the suspect is asserting a right to remain silent or to confer with counsel, the interrogator may ask questions to clarify, but the interrogator is not required to clarify and may continue the questioning. State v. Speed, 265 Kan. 26, 37-38, 961 P.2d 13 (1998). The State cites State v. Morris, 255 Kan. 964, 975-76, 880 P.2d 1244 (1994), and McCorkendale, 267 Kan. at 273, in support of its position. In Morris, the court found the statement `I'm not sure what I want to do' was not an unambiguous invocation of rights. 255 Kan. at 976. In McCorkendale, the court held that the statement `So that's all I [got] to say' was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent, and since it could have also been interpreted as a statement that he had finished explaining the matter, the statement was at best ambiguous. 267 Kan. at 273. However, we believe the statement in this case is most analogous to State v. Fritschen, 247 Kan. 592, 606, 802 P.2d 558 (1990), where Fritschen stated, `I don't want to talk about it any more, it hurts too much.' The officer interpreted this to mean that Fritschen was not invoking his right to silence but that he did not want to think about the murder. The officer asked Fritschen if he would continue answering questions, and Fritschen agreed. The Fritschen court, citing Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 83 L. Ed. 2d 488, 105 S. Ct. 490 (1984), stated that only prior statements and the statement itself may be looked at in determining whether the statement itself is ambiguous. 247 Kan. at 607. A defendant's words are treated as if they are plain and unambiguous and, therefore, not subject to construction. See Donesay, 265 Kan. at 68. The court interpreted that Fritschen was saying he was upset and having difficulty talking and, thus, the statement did not even reach the level of a potentially ambiguous request. Fritschen also found that even if the request was ambiguous, the officer's further inquiry concerning whether the defendant wanted to continue answering questions followed proper procedure. 247 Kan. at 607-08. As in Morris, McCorkendale, and Fritschen, we interpret Holmes' statement that I think I'll just quit talking, I don't know as an ambiguous invocation of rights. The statement could be construed as not wanting to talk about the shooting details at that moment in the interrogation but not knowing if he should. However, Holmes' statement could also be construed as an assertion of his right to remain silent. Nevertheless, the officers followed proper procedure by further inquiring whether he wanted to talk about something else. The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress, finding that all statements were voluntary and given freely and knowingly. Applying our standard of review, we conclude that the facts found by the trial court were supported by substantial competent evidence. Those facts support our independent legal conclusion that Holmes' confession was voluntarily given. We therefore affirm the trial court's admission of Holmes' confession during trial.