People v. Henderson, 470 P.3d 71

Paul Henderson was convicted of first-degree murder (special circumstances: robbery and burglary), attempted murder, robbery, burglary, and related offenses; jury returned death sentence and additional terms; appeal automatic.
Night of June 22, 1997: intruder bound and assaulted Reginald and Peggy Baker; Reginald died of cardiac arrest exacerbated by a neck wound; Peggy severely injured; offender fled in Bakers’ maroon 1992 Chevrolet.
No fingerprint or biological evidence tied Henderson to the scene or car; circumstantial links included witnesses who saw Henderson in a similar car and a jailhouse/informal confession to Gregory Clayton.
During a Miranda-advised interview Henderson said “I want to speak to an attorney first” and twice “I need to find out,” but officers continued to question and obtained inculpatory statements. Trial court found invocation ambiguous; statements admitted.
California Supreme Court held the request for counsel was clear and unequivocal under Edwards/Davis; continued questioning violated the Fifth Amendment, the statements were inadmissible, and their erroneous admission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Henderson unequivocally invoked his right to counsel so that questioning had to stop (Edwards/Davis standard)	Henderson’s words about “taking responsibility” and mentioning “other people” made his request ambiguous; officers reasonably continued questioning to clarify.	He clearly said “I want to speak to an attorney first” and twice “I need to find out,” which a reasonable officer would understand as a request for counsel.	Court held the invocation was clear and unequivocal; officers violated Edwards by continuing to question.
Whether admission of the post-invocation statements was harmless error (Chapman)	Even without the statements, other evidence (witnesses, car connection, Clayton’s testimony) supported conviction.	The confession was the centerpiece; without it, the case was weak and reversal required.	Court found the error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given lack of strong independent evidence; reversed and remanded.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes Miranda warnings and right to counsel during custodial interrogation)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (police must cease interrogation after an unequivocal request for counsel)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (request for counsel must be unambiguous under an objective test)
Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (postrequest statements cannot be used to cast retrospective doubt on clarity of invocation)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error standard: People must prove error did not contribute to verdict beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v. Cahill, 5 Cal.4th 478 (confession as prosecution’s centerpiece makes erroneous admission likely prejudicial)
People v. Neal, 31 Cal.4th 63 (erroneous admission of confession required reversal where confession was central to conviction)
Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523 (limited requests for counsel may allow oral confession when defendant affirmatively chooses to speak)
People v. Flores, 9 Cal.5th 371 (context can make an answer equivocal; officers may seek clarification when invocation ambiguous)