Ballard v. State
24 A.3d 96
| Md. | 2011Background
- Ballard was arrested in Salisbury after the death of Shirley Smith, determined a homicide by asphyxia, with a broken hyoid bone at autopsy.
- Police recovered the SIM card from Smith’s phone and detained Ballard, who was interrogated on videotape four days later by Detective Kaiser.
- Before interrogation, Ballard was Mirandized and waived his rights; the interrogation excerpt began with Ballard making statements and requesting an attorney.
- During the interview, Ballard said, “You mind if I not say no more and just talk to an attorney about this,” which was followed by a back-and-forth; he eventually re-affirmed desire for counsel and then the detective continued questioning.
- A suppression motion sought to suppress statements obtained after the invocation; the trial court found the invocation ambiguous, and denied suppression.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding the invocation ambiguous; the Court granted certiorari to decide whether Ballard’s statements should have been suppressed, ultimately reversing and remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ballard clearly invoked the right to counsel | Ballard contends his words unambiguously invoked counsel | State argues the remark was ambiguous and did not require cessation | Yes; Ballard unambiguously invoked the right to counsel, requiring cessation |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (warnings and ongoing rights during interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (bright-line rule: once counsel is requested, interrogation must cease until counsel is present)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (ambiguity test for requests; requires unambiguous request for counsel)
- McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991) (Edwards rule as prophylaxis against compelled statements)
- Matthews v. State, 106 Md.App. 725 (1995) (Md. ambiguous-counsel invocations considered in context)
- Minehan v. State, 147 Md.App. 432 (2002) (ambiguity of counsel invocations under Maryland law)
- State v. Harris, 305 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (early invocation interpretations treated as unambiguous when clearly articulated)