Court Opinion

ID: 9763729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:53:52.216925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:49.220298
License: Public Domain

NICHOLS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
I cannot join the majority in finding an ambiguity in the Defendant’s plain statement, “I’m not going to answer anything.” By such words he did not equivocate as to a possible preference for one interrogator over another.
Neither can I join my colleague who in dissent declares that the only rational conclusion the evidence supports is that the Defendant by his statement intended to cut off the questioning and made that intention known unequivocably.
*65Mine is a middle ground. The record does not beyond a reasonable doubt support the conclusion that the Defendant’s right to cut off questioning was “scrupulously honored.” State v. Stone, Me., 397 A.2d 989, 995 (1979); Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 104, 96 S.Ct. 321, 326, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975).
Neither does the record reflect that the Defendant himself, rather than Sergeant Wilcox, initiated the conversation which thereafter ensued. The Defendant’s right to remain silent stands on the same plane with his right to the presence of counsel. Once either right is claimed, it must be rigorously protected. See Edwards v. Arizona, - U.S. - , -, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).
I find no need to reach the factual question of what may have been the second questioner’s motivation in pursuing the interrogation, as does my colleague in his dissent.