Court Opinion

ID: 9541854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:29:02.852095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:02.652116
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, appellant’s statements were not inadmissible under Commonwealth v. Hubble, 509 Pa. 497, 504 A.2d 168 (1986) because, again contrary to the majority’s assertion, appellant did not “clearly invoke his rights under Miranda to secure counsel.”
As the record demonstrates, appellant merely “asked if he could use the phone to call his mother to see if she could get him an attorney.” Quite legitimately, the police officer queried “are you saying you want us to stop questioning you until you have an attorney present?” Appellant responded “no, go ahead and finish with what you are doing.”
There is nothing in this exchange (which was “the only time he came close to asking for an attorney”) that would trigger the prophylactic rule of exclusion of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), reh’g denied, 452 U.S. 973, 101 S.Ct. 3128, 69 L.Ed.2d 984 (1981). Appellant’s “request for an attorney” was equivocal and was properly clarified by the police *218officer’s response. Accordingly, appellant’s statements were properly admitted by the trial court.
FLAHERTY and McDERMOTT, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.