State v. Monroe

645 P.2d 363, 103 Idaho 129, 1982 Ida. LEXIS 251

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Decided: May 12, 1982
• Docket: 12532
• Status: Published

Opinions

DONALDSON, Justice.

On appeal this Court affirmed the defendant-appellant’s conviction in State v. Monroe, 101 Idaho 251, 611 P.2d 1036 (1980). The facts are set out in that opinion. After granting the appellant’s Petition for writ of certiorari, the United States Supreme Court, 451 U.S. 1014, 101 S.Ct. 3001, 69 L.Ed.2d 385, vacated the judgment and remanded the case back to this Court for further consideration in light of their recent opinion in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).¹

The only issue on remand from the United States Supreme Court is whether the defendant’s confession should have been suppressed by the trial court because at the time of his confession the defendant was denied his right to counsel. Before addressing this issue it must first be established that the defendant invoked his right to counsel and that a custodial interrogation took place. It is necessary to determine whether there was a custodial interrogation because the United States Supreme Court held in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), that the right to have counsel present only extends to custodial interrogations.

The record shows that the defendant requested counsel three times before confessing to the police. The first time was after the police entered his home, awoke him, brought him into the living room apd asked him whether he wanted to make a statement. He said he thought that he should see a lawyer before making a statement. The second request for counsel came after the defendant was placed under arrest, handcuffed and searched. Again he was asked whether he wanted to make a statement, and again he said that he would after he had been advised by his attorney. The third request came while in custody and after a detective asked if he were ready to give a statement. He said, “I want a lawyer before I talk to you.” These three requests are more than sufficient to establish that the defendant had invoked his right to counsel.

Concerning the issue of whether a custodial interrogation took place, the United States Supreme Court in Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980), set out the test for determining whether a suspect has been interrogated in violation of the standards set out in Miranda, supra. The Court in Innis stated, “the term ‘interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” Innis, 446 U.S., at 301, 100 S.Ct., at 1689, 64 L.Ed.2d at 308.

In this case, Detective Anderson approached the defendant while he was in custody and Anderson testified the conversation went as follows:

“I told him that we were going to be talking to everybody that was remotely involved in this situation and he indicated that Mr. Muller did not know anything about it, did not have anything to do with it; something of that nature, and I then asked him if he would like to give me his side of it or what did take place and he said, ‘Yes.’ ”

Without doubt this testimony indicates that an interrogation occurred because immediately before the confession there was express questioning by the police officer. Therefore, having determined that the defendant invoked his right to counsel and that a custodial interrogation occurred, we find the defendant was entitled to have counsel present.

Even though the defendant may waive his right to counsel and respond to interrogation, the United States Supreme Court stated in Edwards that,

“we now hold that when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights. We further hold that an accused, such as Edwards, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges or conversations with the police.” 451 U.S., at 484, 101 S.Ct., at 1884.

Following Edwards, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in U.S. v. Hinckley, 525 F.Supp. 1342 (1981), aff’d 672 F.2d 115 (D.C.Cir.1982), suppressed statements made by the defendant after determining that the defendant’s right to counsel had been violated when FBI agents interrogated him despite unequivocal statements that he wanted to speak to a lawyer. The court stated that, “Since the ‘background’ information obtained at the Washington Field Office was not the product of conversation initiated by Hinckley, the mere fact that he responded to persistent and express questioning does not yield the conclusion that he waived his previously expressed right to consult an attorney.” Id. at 1358.

The case before us is also similar to Edwards in that the defendant requested counsel but the confession was obtained without the benefit of counsel being present and only after the police officer initiated further interrogation by asking the defendant if he would like to give his side of the story. Therefore, following Edwards, we find that because the defendant asked for counsel three times and was not given the opportunity to deal with the police through counsel, the confession that was a result of police-initiated interrogation must be suppressed. We reverse and remand for a new trial with directions to suppress the confession obtained in violation of the defendant’s right to counsel.

McFADDEN and BISTLINE, JJ., and SCOGGIN, J. Pro Tern., concur.

1 . Edwards was decided subsequent to the trial of this matter and the trial judge did not have the benefit of the United States Supreme Court’s decision.