Court Opinion

ID: 9740989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:46:54.078055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:21.380689
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
Appellant's utterances in this case in response to an advisement of rights, like those considered in Sleek v. State (1986), 499 N.E.2d 751, and Smith v. Illinois 469 U.S. 91, 105 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984), are in my view sufficiently clear and unequivocal to constitute a request for counsel, and consequently at trial appellant was protected by the Fifth Amendment from the State's use of these admissions made to interrogators after that request. Likewise, I cannot view the error in admitting the statement as harmless constitutional error, as it is reasonably likely that the jury utilized the statement in deciding *105whether it was appellant or Wolfe who had done the shooting.
For these reasons, related to Issue V, I would reverse the conviction and remand the case to the Superior Court with instructions to grant a new trial.
DICKSON, J., concurs.