Ensslin v. State
308 Ga. 462
Ga.2020Background
- Gary Ensslin was convicted of malice murder and related offenses for the December 13, 2007 killing of Stephen Wills; trial (Oct. 2008) produced convictions and a life sentence (later corrected to life with parole eligibility).
- Police conducted multiple recorded interviews; during the final interview (about 38 minutes in) Ensslin said, “I ain’t got nothing else to say… If you’re going to charge me, you take me and charge me,” and repeatedly refused to talk further.
- Investigators continued questioning after that invocation; shortly thereafter Ensslin admitted shooting Wills and claimed self-defense; he also wrote a statement and later testified at trial consistent with that account.
- Physical and circumstantial evidence (ransacked bedroom, emptied wallet, items from Wills found with Ensslin, bullets matching Malone’s pistol, staged-scene indicators, false alibis and calls/messages) supported the State’s case.
- At a post-conviction/new-trial hearing (2019), the trial court found Ensslin unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent and the subsequent questioning violated Miranda, but ruled the erroneous admission of the post-invocation statements harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed: it agreed the invocation was unequivocal and the interrogation thereafter unconstitutional, but concluded the admission was harmless because the contested statements were cumulative of Ensslin’s trial testimony and other overwhelming evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements elicited after an unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent required exclusion and whether their admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Ensslin: investigators continued interrogation after he unequivocally invoked silence; the post-invocation statements should have been excluded and their admission was not harmless | State: the admission was constitutional error but harmless because the statements were cumulative of Ensslin’s trial testimony and the other evidence was overwhelming | Court: Ensslin did unequivocally invoke his right; admission was error, but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions affirmed |
| Whether Ensslin’s trial testimony could be considered in the harmless-error analysis | Ensslin: his testimony was compelled by the admission error and therefore should not be considered in harmlessness analysis | State: the record shows Ensslin likely would have testified even if the post-invocation statements were suppressed, so his testimony may be considered | Court: relied on Linares and trial record; concluded Ensslin likely would have testified anyway and properly considered his testimony in the harmless-error analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
- Davidson v. State, 304 Ga. 460 (interrogation must cease after an unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent)
- Starks v. State, 266 Ga. 547 (post-invocation statements and the danger that compelled testimony can make admission non-harmless)
- Linares v. State, 266 Ga. 812 (defendant must show the ruling was the primary factor compelling testimony before excluding that testimony from harmless-error analysis)
- McCord v. State, 305 Ga. 318 (constitutional error in admitting testimonial evidence may be harmless if cumulative of other admissible statements)
- Frazier v. State, 278 Ga. 297 (same—admission of statements after asserted invocation can be harmless when cumulative)
- Bearden v. State, 241 Ga. App. 842 (holding post-invocation custodial statements harmless where cumulative of trial testimony)