Opinion ID: 2637824
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's Statements About Taking a Polygraph

Text: Defendant claims that at the end of his last interrogation on December 5, 1996, his statement, I think I should talk to a lawyer before I decide to take a polygraph, was a clear invocation of his right to counsel, made in response to Detective Aguillon's offer to provide a polygraph examination. We disagree. (6) As we have held, a defendant does not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel when he makes that request contingent on an event that has not occurred. (See People v. Gonzalez (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1111 [23 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 104 P.3d 98] [defendant's request for counsel was conditioned on whether he was going to be charged with any crimes].) In the present case, defendant's statement was conditionalI think I should talk to a lawyer before I decide to take a polygraph. (Italics added.) [11] Under these circumstances, the detectives reasonably could conclude that defendant only wanted the assistance of counsel if he was taking a polygraph exam. Since no polygraph exam was administered, defendant did not need the assistance of counsel, and the detectives, under Davis, supra, 512 U.S. 452, were not obligated to inquire further at that point or when they approached him again the following morning. (7) Accordingly, defendant's Miranda claims lack merit, and the trial court did not err in admitting his statements at trial.