137 N.E.3d 292
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background:
- On March 14, 2017 a trailer fire killed Jeffrey ("Gilbert") Givan; Joshua Risinger was arrested at the scene and taken to the sheriff's department for interview.
- Detectives Matt and Brian Busick (and an officer) Mirandized Risinger; he signed a Miranda waiver and the first interview lasted ~90 minutes over parts of that day.
- Approximately 19 minutes into the first interview Risinger said, “I’m done talking,” but detectives continued questioning and obtained incriminating statements.
- The next day Detective Matt Busick conducted two more Mirandized interviews (≈12 and 30 minutes); those produced further admissions.
- Risinger moved to suppress his statements twice; the trial court denied both motions. A jury convicted him of murder (merged convictions) and he received a 60-year sentence.
- The Court of Appeals held the first-interview statements made after Risinger said “I’m done talking,” and the second and third interviews, were obtained in violation of Miranda and should have been excluded; judgment reversed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Risinger) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Risinger’s Miranda waivers and subsequent statements were voluntary | Waivers were knowing and voluntary; interviews were short, routine techniques used, and he acknowledged rights | Mental illness and continued questioning after invocation rendered waivers/statements involuntary | Court: Waivers and statements were voluntary under totality of circumstances |
| Whether detectives scrupulously honored Risinger’s invocation of the right to remain silent | Risinger’s “I’m done talking” was not an unequivocal invocation (citing cases where equivocal remarks did not invoke Miranda) | “I’m done talking” was an unequivocal invocation and questioning should have ceased; later statements tainted | Court: “I’m done talking” was an unequivocal invocation; detectives failed to scrupulously honor it; statements after that point and the later interviews inadmissible; reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (warning required before custodial interrogation)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (right to cut off questioning must be scrupulously honored; not an absolute bar to later questioning)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (admissibility after invocation depends on whether right was scrupulously honored)
- Wilkes v. State, 917 N.E.2d 675 (Ind. 2009) (equivocal statements of reluctance may not constitute invocation)
- Mendoza-Vargas v. State, 974 N.E.2d 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (factors to assess whether police scrupulously honored invocation)
- State v. Banks, 2 N.E.3d 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (voluntariness inquiry; mental illness is one factor)
- Johnson v. State, 584 N.E.2d 1092 (Ind. 1992) (State must prove knowing and voluntary waiver beyond a reasonable doubt)