Opinion ID: 2371832
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Right to Counsel During Booking and Unrecorded Interview

Text: Next, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to find that he had invoked his right to counsel during booking and during an unrecorded interview. According to the defendant, because the trial court did not find that he had invoked his right to counsel, it improperly denied portions of his motions to suppress in violation of Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We first address the defendant's claim under the State Constitution and cite federal opinions for guidance only. State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347 (1983). Both the United States Supreme Court and this court have developed procedural protections to be adhered to during custodial interrogations. State v. Plch, 149 N.H. 608, 613, 826 A.2d 534 (2003). Accordingly, before interrogating a person in custody, the police must inform him that he has a right to remain silent, that anything he says can and will be used against him, and that he has a right to counsel. Id. (quotation omitted). If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. Id. (quotation omitted). While we review a trial court's finding concerning which words a defendant used to invoke the right to counsel under the clearly erroneous standard, whether those words constitute an invocation of the right to counsel is a question of law, which we review de novo.  State v. Grant-Chase, 140 N.H. 264, 267, 665 A.2d 380 (1995) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1140, 116 S.Ct. 1431, 134 L.Ed.2d 553 (1996). In ruling on the defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court found that the video tape of the booking procedure and the testimony of the booking officer, Officer Barry Fenton, demonstrated that the defendant did not request counsel during the booking process. Upon review of the record, we agree that the defendant did not use any words that invoked the right to counsel during booking. Therefore, the trial court's finding was not clearly erroneous. Regarding the defendant's contention that he requested counsel during an unrecorded interview, the trial court received conflicting testimony: two police officers testified that the defendant did not use any words that would invoke the right to counsel, while the defendant testified that he requested an attorney. The weight to be given testimony depends on the credibility of the witnesses, and the credibility of witnesses is for the trial court to determine. State v. Gourlay, 148 N.H. 75, 78, 802 A.2d 1203 (2002) (quotation omitted). Since we cannot say that no reasonable person would have reached the same decision in light of the conflicting testimony, we defer to the finding of the trial court. See id. Accordingly, we hold that the defendant's right to counsel under the State Constitution was not violated either during booking or during the unrecorded interview. Further, because the Federal Constitution does not provide any greater protection than does the State Constitution, we reach the same result under the Federal Constitution. Plch, 149 N.H. at 620, 826 A.2d 534; see United States v. Ogbuehi, 18 F.3d 807, 813 (9th Cir.1994).