Attorneys – Counsel request – Custodial interrogation

Where a defendant’s motion to suppress statements to the police was denied by a judge who found that the defendant’s statement to police that she needed a lawyer was an unclear and ambiguous request for counsel, that was clear error, as a reasonable officer would have understood the defendant’s statement “I just need a lawyer or something, I need a lawyer” was an unequivocal request for an attorney.

“Defendant appeals by leave granted the trial court’s order denying her motion to suppress evidence. Defendant was charged with first-degree felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b), and first-degree child abuse, MCL 750.136b(2). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

“This case arises from the death of KM, a 22-month old child. Defendant was babysitting KM when he suffered a severe head injury that resulted in his death.

“Defendant argues the trial court erred when it denied her motion to suppress her statements made to the police during the interrogation. Specifically, she asserts that she unambiguously requested an attorney when she stated that: (1) she would want an attorney if KM’s mother pursued charges against her and (2) she needed a lawyer. We disagree with defendant’s first claim, but agree with her second.

“Defendant also argues that the trial court erred when it determined that, even if defendant had unequivocally invoked her right to counsel, she reinitiated the interview by asking questions related to the offense. We agree.

“Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Dissenting judge’s comments

REDFORD, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). “I concur with the majority’s opinion that the trial court did not clearly err in concluding that defendant’s initial statements regarding the need for counsel did not constitute a clear and unambiguous request for counsel. However, I respectfully dissent from the remainder of the majority’s opinion. I would affirm the trial court’s holding that defendant’s statement, ‘I need a lawyer or something. I need a lawyer’, given the context and nature of the interview when those words were stated, was an unclear and ambiguous invocation of her right to counsel. I likewise conclude, that even if defendant unequivocally invoked her right to counsel with those words, she reinitiated the interview.”

People v. Hodges; MiLW 08-108111 , 11 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Cameron, J., Letica, J.; Redford, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part; on appeal from Macomb Circuit Court; Mariell R. Lehman for appellant; Jonathan A. Mycek for appellee.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.

Click here to read the full text of the dissent.

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.