Moss v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6342
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Moss was convicted of petty theft for unauthorized use of his employer’s gas card; originally charged with grand theft.
- Trial jury found Moss guilty of the lesser charge; the trial court denied a motion to suppress a custodial statement.
- Moss invoked his right to counsel during a taped interrogation after Miranda warnings were read.
- Despite the invocation, the detective continued questioning Moss in the same custodial setting without pausing.
- The trial court ruled Moss’s invocation was equivocal and admitted the statement; Moss appeals the denial.
- The appellate court reverses, holding the continued interrogation violated Miranda and the waiver was not proven, remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Moss’s request for counsel unequivocal? | Moss unequivocally asked for a lawyer. | Moss’s statements were equivocal after initial request. | Yes; Moss’s requests were unequivocal. |
| Did police continue interrogation after an unequivocal invocation require cessation and a waiver to resume? | Waiver could validate continued questioning after invocation. | Continued interrogation can be permissible if properly waived. | Interrogation continued; no valid waiver established. |
| Was the admission of the statement harmless error? | Statement admission could be harmless given other evidence. | Harmless error standard should apply and may not permit reversal. | Not harmless; error contributed to the conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (once right to counsel is invoked, questioning must cease unless initiated by suspect)
- McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991) (unequivocal requests for counsel require cessation of questioning)
- Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (1984) (post-invocation statements cannot cast doubt on initial invocation; relate to waiver)
- Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403 (Fla.2010) (miranda rights and right to counsel under Florida and U.S. constitutions)
- Black v. State, 59 So.3d 340 (Fla.4th DCA 2011) (invocation of right to counsel requires cessation of interrogation)
- Youngblood v. State, 9 So.3d 717 (Fla.2d DCA 2009) (post-invocation interrogation analyzed for coercion and waiver)
- Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) (invocation protection is designed to prevent coercion; waiver requires initiation by suspect)