Robinson v. State

This Court granted an interlocutory appeal in this malice murder prosecution to review the trial court’s ruling that Tyrell Robinson did not invoke his right to counsel during a custodial interrogation. As Robinson made an unequivocal request for counsel that was not honored, we reverse.

Robinson was investigated in connection with the death of Lauren Liz, the three-year-old child of Bielka Liz, with whom Robinson lived. During a custodial interview, he was advised of his Miranda1 rights by a police detective, and the following exchange took place:

Detective: If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you would still have the right to stop answering questions at any time. You will also have the *43right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer. Do you understand that right?

Robinson: Yes.

Detective: Knowing these rights that I just advised you, do you wish to speak to me without an attorney present?

Robinson: Uhm, yeah, I would like a lawyer.

Detective: So you would like to have a lawyer without — to — before you speak to us?

Robinson: I mean, I can talk to y’all and stuff. It don’t matter.

Detective: Here’s the thing. It’s up to you, Mr. Robinson. I can’t advise you whether you need or want a lawyer or not. You have to make the decision. You said you would like a lawyer. I can’t — it, it — like I said, it’s up to you. You have to tell me yes or no if you want a lawyer before you speak to us.

Robinson: No, I can talk to y’all without a lawyer.

Detective: Are you sure?

Robinson: Yeah.

Robinson proceeded to answer questions regarding the circumstances surrounding the child’s death.

After an indictment was returned against him,2 Robinson moved to exclude from trial any evidence of answers and statements he gave after the above exchange. A Jackson v. Denno3 hearing was held and the trial court denied the motion; the court also issued a certificate of immediate review, and Robinson’s application for interlocutory appeal in this Court followed.

A suspect who asks for a lawyer at any time during a custodial interrogation may not be subjected to further questioning by law enforcement until an attorney has been made available or until the suspect reinitiates the conversation. If the police persist in questioning a suspect who has requested that counsel be present, any resulting statements made by the suspect are inadmissible in the State’s case-in-chief. In order for a suspect to properly invoke his right to counsel during a custodial interrogation, he must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.

*44(Citations and punctuation omitted.) McDougal v. State, 277 Ga. 493, 498-499 (1) (B) (591 SE2d 788) (2004).

Invocation of the Miranda right to counsel “requires, at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney.” [Cit.] But if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, our precedents do not require the cessation of questioning. [Cits.]

Jordan v. State, 267 Ga. 442, 444 (1) (480 SE2d 18) (1997).

There was no ambiguity or equivocation in Robinson’s statement: “Uhm, yeah, I would like a lawyer.” Any ambiguity was created solely by the investigator’s subsequent questioning. Robinson “did not use equivocal words such as ‘might’ or ‘maybe’ when referring to [his] desire for a lawyer. [He] was also not referring to a need for counsel sometime in the future . . . .” Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269, 272 (1) (553 SE2d 598) (2001). Compare Jordan, supra.

During the Jackson v. Denno hearing on the motion to exclude Robinson’s answers and statements after his invocation of the right to counsel, the detective was asked whether “there’s something in the sentence ‘Yeah, I would like a lawyer’ that doesn’t mean he would like a lawyer?” The detective responded:

The pause before answering the question. . . . The statement when he said “Yeah, I would like a lawyer,” it struck me as does he want a lawyer before — I couldn’t tell if he wanted a lawyer before we asked questions, or if he wanted one eventually, or if he wanted one immediately. So that’s why I asked him, the very next question.

The officer also testified that he “couldn’t speculate as to what [Robinson] was saying at that point. . . .”4 But, no speculation on the officer’s part was necessary; the phrase “I would like a lawyer” is *45clear. Nor is the officer’s stated quandary regarding when Robinson wished a lawyer based upon reason; Robinson’s statement that he would like a lawyer was after having been advised of his rights regarding answering “questions now without a lawyer present,” (emphasis supplied), and the detective’s next question about “speak[ing] to me without an attorney present” suggested no other time frame. And, this is not a circumstance in which a reasonable police officer “would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel”; Robinson did not use any conditional words or merely express that he “might need a lawyer.” Jordan, supra. Indeed, the lack of ambiguity is shown even by the detective’s supposedly clarifying recitation, in which the detective recognized: “You said you would like a lawyer.”

“When a suspect in custody unequivocally invokes his right to an attorney, all interrogations of that suspect must cease until an attorney is provided or the suspect offers to restart the interrogation process.” Simpson v. State, 277 Ga. 356, 357 (2) (589 SE2d 91) (2003). This did not occur, and any resulting answers and statements are inadmissible. McDougal, supra. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying the motion to exclude such evidence.

Judgment reversed.