HAMMICK v. STATE, 449 P.3d 1272

On May 10, 2015 Hammick broke into a Claremore home, robbed three occupants at gunpoint, and fled in a victim's car. He later abandoned that car and took a 9mm pistol from a different vehicle.
Two victims identified Hammick from six‑person photo lineups days after the robbery; a third victim did not identify him.
Police arrested Hammick the next day after a trespassing call. He denied involvement in an initial interview and asked for counsel.
After invoking counsel, Hammick later reinitiated conversations with investigators twice: once during execution of a DNA warrant (making incriminating statements) and again a month later when he confessed and directed officers to the buried pistol.
At trial a jury convicted him of robbery with a dangerous weapon, first‑degree burglary, and larceny of an automobile; the court sentenced him to concurrent terms (38, 20, and 9 years respectively).
On appeal Hammick challenged (1) admission of his post‑invocation statements, (2) the photo‑lineup as impermissibly suggestive, and (3) admission of the subsequent pistol theft evidence under the res gestae doctrine.

Issue	Hammick's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of post‑invocation statements (right to counsel)	Statements obtained after he invoked counsel were not valid waivers; his later confessions were coerced or not knowing/voluntary	Hammick reinitiated the conversations and knowingly/voluntarily waived counsel; no coercion or inducement	Affirmed — he initiated both later interviews and waived counsel; statements were admissible
Photo lineup suggestiveness / due process	Lineup was suggestive (only one with neck tattoo, photo first, outdoor photo) and tainted IDs; without IDs and confessions evidence insufficient	Lineup substantially complied with similarity guidelines; victims had independent reliability factors (view, attention, certainty, description)	Affirmed — lineup not impermissibly suggestive; identifications independently reliable
Admission of pistol theft under res gestae / Rule 403 prejudice	Theft of pistol the next day was too remote/unconnected and more prejudicial than probative	Pistol theft formed part of chain of events, corroborated confession, and was probative; limiting instruction given	Affirmed — admission proper under res gestae; probative value not substantially outweighed prejudice; no shown prejudice

Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (requires a voluntariness hearing for confessions)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (once counsel invoked, interrogation must cease unless accused initiates)
Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009) (waiver of counsel after invocation can be valid if voluntary and intelligent)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for assessing reliability of identification)
Leigh v. State, 698 P.2d 936 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985) (suggestive lineup but in‑court ID admissible if independently reliable)
Underwood v. State, 252 P.3d 221 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (statements voluntary where defendant reinitiated contact with police)
Runnels v. State, 426 P.3d 614 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018) (Jackson‑Denno standards and waiver analysis in Oklahoma)