Lewis v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 225
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Lewis, age 22, interviewed by Jennings County Sheriff’s Sergeant McCoy about alleged sex crime involving a 13-year-old victim (April 25, 2010).
- Officer told Lewis he was not under arrest and free to leave; interview in a locked room with Miranda rights administered.
- During interrogation, Lewis asked to see a lawyer with statement: Can I get a lawyer?; later admitted consensual/non-consensual aspects and provided details.
- Two days later Lewis was arrested and charged with Class A Felony Child Molesting; Lewis moved to suppress interview statements as violating his Fifth Amendment right to counsel.
- Suppression hearing: the parties stipulate Lewis reasonably believed he was in custody; trial court denied suppression; appellate review sought.
- Court reverses, remands with instructions to suppress statements and for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lewis was in custody for Miranda purposes | Lewis reasonably believed himself to be in custody | Stipulation binds custody assessment; objective test governs | Custody based on objective standard; Lewis was in custody as reasonable person would feel not free to leave. |
| Whether Lewis unequivocally invoked his right to counsel | Lewis's question Can I get a lawyer? was an unequivocal request for counsel | Powell shows ambiguity; can be ambiguous; police need not stop | Lewis's question unequivocally invoked the right to counsel; interrogation should have stopped and counsel provided. |
| Effect of invocation on interrogation and admissibility of statements | Statements obtained after invocation are inadmissible | Interrogation could continue if no valid invocation or after waiver | Interrogation suppressed and remanded for further proceedings. |
| Whether the stipulation on custody forecloses appellate review | Stipulation binding; custody issue resolved | No need to revisit custody on appeal given stipulation | Stipulation binds the custody issue; not revisited on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (ambiguous invocation may not require cessation of questioning)
- Jolley v. State, 684 N.E.2d 491 (Ind. 1997) (right to counsel requires clear invocation; police must pause)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (clear right to counsel absent waiver after invocation)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation and right to counsel)
- Zook v. State, 513 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind.1987) (accrual of right to counsel during custodial interrogation)
- Powell v. State, 898 N.E.2d 328 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (ambiguous vs. unequivocal invocation; distinguishable from Lewis)
- Lee v. United States, 413 F.3d 622 (7th Cir.2005) (can be akin to request for attorney; requires clarification in some contexts)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (objective custody standard; reasonable person would feel not free to leave)
- Davies v. State, 730 N.E.2d 726 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (custody and interrogation standards; safeguards to secure privilege)
- Gunn v. State, 956 N.E.2d 136 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (sufficiency-like review of suppression rulings; consider favorable evidence)