Jason King v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 355
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- King was convicted of attempted murder after a nightclub shooting of McGuire; a recorded interrogation captured an inaudible segment including the phrase ‘an attorney’; the trial court denied suppression of King’s confession, finding no clear request for counsel; King did not contemporaneously object to the confession’s admission; on appeal, the State argued the request was ambiguous, and King argued it was an unequivocal invocation; King received a forty-five year sentence after Counts I and II merged; the case involved a subsequent third interrogation where King invoked his right to counsel.”,
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding a request for counsel at 1:02 of the second interrogation | State contends the phrase shows a request for an attorney | King contends no clear request was made | No clear error; finding supported by record. |
| Whether the denial of suppression was an abuse of discretion given the alleged invocation | State argues proper under waiver and standard | King argues the invocation was clear and suppression should have granted | Waived, and, in any event, the invocation was ambiguous and not a clear request. |
| Whether the forty-five year sentence is inappropriate | State contends sentence appropriate given offender’s history | King contends sentence excessive | Not inappropriate; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. State, 873 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (Do I need an attorney? not invocation but a question)
- Bean v. State, 913 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (Similar questions not invoking counsel)
- Lewis v. State, 966 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (Can I get a lawyer? held unambiguous invocation)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (Invocation of right to counsel requires some expression; ambiguous references do not halt questioning)
- Jolley v. State, 684 N.E.2d 491 (Ind. 1997) (No magic words required for invoking counsel)
- Carr v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 2010) (Ambiguity test for invoking counsel standard)
- State v. Friedel, 714 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (Clear error standard for trial court findings)
- Collom v. State, If included () (Not used)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Context for sentencing review)
- Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (Sentencing review factors)