State v. Blythe
2013 Ohio 1688
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Blythe was convicted of Rape of a Child Under 13 in Montgomery County, Ohio, and sentenced to 10 years; he appealed the suppression ruling.
- Blythe gave a custodial interview at the jail after being Mirandized; he answered some questions, declined others, and remained silent on some.
- The trial court overruled Blythe’s suppression motion, concluding he did not unambiguously invoke counsel or the right to remain silent.
- Blythe pled no contest to Rape of a Child; the Gross Sexual Imposition charge was dismissed; he was designated a Tier III sex offender.
- On appeal, Blythe argued the statements were coerced and obtained in violation of Miranda because he invoked his rights during the interview.
- The court held Blythe did not unambiguously rescind his waiver or invoke the right to counsel; the suppression motion was properly overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Blythe unambiguously invoke his right to counsel? | Blythe asserted contact with counsel prior to the interview and allegedly informed Det. Smith. | Detective Smith should have recognized Blythe’s invocation and ceased questioning. | No unambiguous invocation; waiver remained valid. |
| Did Blythe unambiguously rescind his waiver by answering some questions and remaining silent on others? | Selective answering showed a rescission of the waiver and required cessation of questioning. | Silence on some questions does not revoke the waiver; cannot guess scope. | Not an unambiguous rescission; questioning could continue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. Supreme Court 1966) (requirement of warnings and knowing waiver for custodial interrogation)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (clarifies that warnings are sufficient when rights are explained prior to questioning)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994) (ambiguous or equivocal invocation of counsel not a clear request to counsel)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. Supreme Court 1975) (scrupulous honor of right to remain silent; later interrogation may be allowed under Mosley)
- State v. Vanderpool, 2007-Ohio-2430 (Ohio, 2d Dist. Montgomery (2007)) (refusal to answer certain questions does not automatically rescind waiver)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (unambiguous invocation required to halt interrogation)