Owen v. State
2003 WL 22410333, 862 So. 2d 687 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A suspect's equivocal or ambiguous statement regarding their right to terminate an interrogation, such as "I don't want to talk about it," does not require police to cease questioning. Police are only required to stop an interrogation if the suspect makes a clear and unequivocal invocation of their right to remain silent.
Facts:
- Duane Owen broke into a home where fourteen-year-old Karen Slattery was babysitting.
- Owen initially observed Slattery and left the house, only to return a short time later.
- Upon returning, Owen armed himself with a hammer and a knife he found inside the residence.
- He confronted Slattery and stabbed her eighteen times, causing her death.
- After the murder, Owen dragged Slattery's body to a bedroom, sexually assaulted her, and then showered to wash blood off his body.
- During a subsequent multi-day police interrogation, Owen was questioned about the murder.
- In response to specific questions about the crime, Owen stated, "I'd rather not talk about it" and later, "I don't want to talk about it."
- Following these statements, the interrogation continued, and Owen eventually confessed to the murder.
Procedural Posture:
- Duane Owen was convicted of first-degree murder for the death of Karen Slattery and sentenced to death by a Florida trial court.
- On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction in 1990, holding that Owen's Miranda rights were violated when police continued questioning after his equivocal invocation of the right to silence, and remanded for a retrial.
- Prior to retrial, the State moved to admit Owen's confession, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. United States represented a change in the law.
- The trial court denied the State's motion, but the intermediate appellate court certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court.
- In State v. Owen (1997), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the Davis rationale for the right to remain silent, ruled Owen's statements were equivocal, and held his confession would be admissible at the new trial.
- Following a retrial in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, a jury again found Owen guilty of first-degree murder.
- The jury recommended a death sentence by a 10-2 vote, and the trial judge imposed a sentence of death.
- Owen filed this direct appeal of his conviction and death sentence to the Florida Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a suspect's statement like "I don't want to talk about it" or "I'd rather not talk about it" during a custodial interrogation constitute an unequivocal invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, thereby requiring police to cease all questioning?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A suspect's statement such as "I don't want to talk about it" is an equivocal, not an unequivocal, invocation of the right to remain silent, and police are not required to cease an interrogation. Relying on its prior decision in State v. Owen (1997), which adopted the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Davis v. United States, the court held that law enforcement officers have no duty to terminate questioning or ask clarifying questions when a suspect makes an ambiguous statement about terminating an interrogation after a valid Miranda waiver. The court repeatedly characterized Owen's statements as 'equivocal.' Furthermore, it found his confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, as he was read his rights numerous times and admitted he wanted to speak with detectives. The court also affirmed the trial court's application of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) and cold, calculated, and premeditated (CCP) aggravating factors and found the death sentence proportionate.
Concurring - Anstead, C.J.
Yes, I agree with the majority's reasoning and conclusion in all respects, except for its discussion of the constitutional issue raised under Ring v. Arizona.
Concurring - Pariente, J.
Yes, I agree with the majority's conclusion but write separately regarding the analysis of the constitutional challenge under Ring v. Arizona. I would reject Owen's challenge solely based on the existence of the prior-conviction aggravator, rather than relying on the postconviction cases cited by the majority.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the "clear statement rule" in Florida for invoking the right to remain silent, aligning state constitutional protections with the federal standard for invoking the right to counsel established in Davis v. United States. This marks a departure from earlier Florida precedent that required police to clarify a suspect's intent upon an equivocal invocation. The ruling makes it significantly more difficult for defendants to suppress confessions, placing the burden squarely on the suspect to unambiguously and clearly assert their right to terminate questioning. Consequently, it grants law enforcement greater latitude to continue interrogations in the face of ambiguous or hesitant responses from suspects.
