Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Hickman

Court of Appeals of Oregon
410 P.3d 1102, 289 Or.App. 602 (2017)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a suspect in custody makes an equivocal invocation of the right to counsel, police must cease interrogation and may only ask neutral follow-up questions to clarify the suspect's intent; merely acknowledging the suspect's right to counsel is not a permissible clarifying question.


Facts:

  • Soto-Enriquez was a suspect in the shooting death of his cousin in Multnomah County.
  • U.S. Marshalls arrested Soto-Enriquez in Las Vegas, Nevada.
  • Two Oregon detectives, Snider and Crate, traveled to Las Vegas to conduct a custodial interrogation of Soto-Enriquez.
  • After being read his Miranda rights, the detectives informed Soto-Enriquez they had surveillance video of him fleeing the scene of the shooting.
  • In response, Soto-Enriquez stated, 'I, I really don't wanna say too much [unintelligible] I would rather have my lawyer with me but.'
  • Detective Snider immediately interrupted Soto-Enriquez, stating that having a lawyer was 'completely [his] right.'
  • Snider then continued the interrogation by saying, 'We came here to try to get your side of it though because we believe that there's more to it.'
  • Following Snider's statement, Soto-Enriquez made incriminating statements, including that the shooting was 'an accident.'

Procedural Posture:

  • The State charged Soto-Enriquez with manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in an Oregon trial court.
  • Soto-Enriquez filed a pretrial motion to suppress the incriminating statements made during his interrogation, arguing they were obtained in violation of Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution.
  • The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
  • Following a trial, Soto-Enriquez was convicted of the charge.
  • Soto-Enriquez, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Oregon, challenging the trial court's denial of his suppression motion.

Locked

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 detective's response that a suspect has the 'right' to counsel, made immediately after the suspect equivocally states they 'would rather have my lawyer with me,' constitute a permissible clarifying question under Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution, thereby allowing continued interrogation?


Opinions:

Majority - James, J.

No. A detective's response that a suspect has the right to counsel, after the suspect's equivocal invocation, does not constitute a permissible clarifying question. When a suspect equivocally invokes the right to counsel, Article I, section 12 requires police to stop the interrogation and ask only neutral, follow-up questions designed to clarify the suspect's intent. Here, Soto-Enriquez's statement, 'I would rather have my lawyer with me but,' was, at a minimum, an equivocal invocation. Detective Snider's response, '[t]hat's completely your right,' did not seek to clarify the ambiguity; instead, it merely 'parrot[ed] back the same right defendant attempted to invoke.' Snider then continued the impermissible interrogation by encouraging Soto-Enriquez to give 'his side' of the story, which directly prompted the incriminating statements. The court also rejected the state's argument that Soto-Enriquez subsequently waived his right, finding no break in time or change in circumstances sufficient to overcome the initial constitutional violation.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces Oregon's strict standard for police conduct following an ambiguous request for counsel, creating a clear demarcation between permissible clarification and impermissible continued interrogation. The court's holding emphasizes that any police response other than a direct, neutral question aimed at resolving the ambiguity (e.g., 'Are you saying you want a lawyer now?') is a constitutional violation. This precedent makes it more difficult for the state to argue that a suspect 'waived' their rights if the waiver follows an improper police response to an equivocal invocation. The case serves as a clear guide for law enforcement on the precise, limited script they must follow when a suspect hedges on requesting an attorney.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query State v. Hickman (2017) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for State v. Hickman