State v. Adrean L. Smith
850 N.W.2d 915
Wis.2014Background
- Police investigated a park shooting; victim Glodowski identified Dietze as shooter and implicated Cummings as driver; Dietze later implicated Cummings, with Dietze’s backpack and weapon found in Cummings’ vehicle; Cummings admitted to driving Dietze and placed Dietze near scene but denied knowledge of weapon; Carlas claimed an affair with Cummings and a plan to kill her husband for life insurance; interrogation of Cummings occurred after Miranda warnings and he made incriminating statements; Smith was interrogated about armed robberies after waiving Miranda rights and made admissions following ambiguous statements; trial courts denied suppression motions and, in separate cases, Cummings was sentenced to 24 years (later clarified) and Smith to 35 years
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Cummings unequivocally invoke the right to remain silent? | Cummings asserts he clearly invoked silence. | Cummings says statement ended questioning. | Not unequivocal; questioning continued. |
| Did Smith unequivocally invoke the right to remain silent? | Smith argues his statements clearly cut off questioning. | Smith’s remarks were ambiguous, not an unequivocal plea to stop questioning. | Not unequivocal under majority reading. |
| Was Cummings' sentence unduly harsh? | Cummings contends sentence was excessive. | State asserts sentence within discretion and not unduly harsh. | Not unduly harsh; within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (established Miranda warnings and continuing right to silence after waiver)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (clarified unequivocal invocation standard as objective)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (unambiguous right-to-counsel/cut-off questioning rules; clear statement required)
- State v. Ross, 203 Wis. 2d 66, 552 N.W.2d 428 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996) (Wisconsin test requiring unequivocal invocation under prior framework)
- State v. Markwardt, 306 Wis. 2d 420, 742 N.W.2d 546 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) (introduced competing-inference analysis for ambiguous invocations)
- State v. Goetsch, 186 Wis. 2d 1, 519 N.W.2d 634 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994) (compared to Goetsch’s unambiguous invocation in Goetsch)