State v. Avila-Nava
341 P.3d 714
| Or. | 2014Background
- Defendant, a robbery suspect, was stopped, arrested, handcuffed, and read Spanish Miranda warnings.
- At Hillsboro Police Department, Detective Gánete conducted a Spanish-language interrogation and defendant asked whether he must answer questions.
- Gánete explained rights line by line; defendant indicated confusion about the warning that anything said may be used against him.
- After several clarifications, defendant read and understood the warnings; he then stated, “I won’t answer any questions.”
- Trial court found the statement not an unequivocal invocation; court allowed questioning to continue; later statements were admitted as voluntary waivers.
- Court of Appeals affirmed reversal and remanded; Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the initial statement was an unequivocal invocation and whether post-invocation responses could inform that determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ‘I won’t answer any questions’ is an unequivocal invocation of the right to silence under Article I, section 12. | Avila-Nava: words appear unequivocal on their face. | Gánete: context shows lack of unequivocal invocation due to confusion about rights. | Yes, the invocation is evaluated under totality of circumstances; the statement was not unequivocal. |
| May post-invocation responses be considered to determine if invocation was unequivocal under Article I, section 12 (and Smith standard). | State: post-response context can illuminate understanding and negate ambiguity. | Defendant: post-invocation responses cannot undermine an unequivocal initial invocation. | Post-invocation responses cannot be used to cast retrospective doubt on the clarity of the initial request under Article I, section 12. |
| What standard governs evaluation of unequivocal invocation under Article I, section 12 or the Fifth Amendment parallel. | State: consider totality of circumstances with context; allows clarifying questions. | Defendant: ambiguous invocation should be clarified; ambiguous means continued questioning; waiver analysis remains. | Use totality-of-circumstances, considering the defendant’s words, context, and officer’s understanding to determine unambiguity. |
| Did the trial court err in relying on post-invocation evidence to conclude the invocation was equivocal? | State: prior context supported equivocal interpretation. | Defendant: pre-invocation context and words alone show unequivocal invocation. | Trial court erred; no pre-invocation evidence supported equivocal interpretation; interrogation should have ceased. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McAnulty, 356 Or 432 (2014) (unambiguous invocation requires cessation of interrogation)
- State v. Davis, 350 Or 440 (2011) (context matters; clarifying questions allowed after equivocal invocations)
- State v. Avila-Nava, 257 Or App 364 (2013) (Court of Appeals decision reviewed)
- State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703 (2012) (custodial interrogation requires warnings under Article I, section 12)
- State v. Smith, 310 Or 1 (1990) (contextual analysis of ambiguous invocations under state law)
- State v. Charboneau, 323 Or 38 (1996) (equivocal request for counsel; totality of circumstances analysis)
- State v. Kell, 303 Or 89 (1987) (interpretation of defendant’s words in context; conversation-driven approach)
- Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523 (1987) (Barrett standard: interpretation of ambiguous statements under totality of circumstances)
- Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (1984) (Fifth Amendment standard: only pre- or contemporaneous evidence may be used to assess invocation)
- Medina v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095 (11th Cir. 1995) (contextual evidence importance in custodial interrogation)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (Fifth Amendment; post-request responses generally cannot negate prior unambiguous invocation)