State v. Brooke, 369 P.3d 1205

Defendant (UO student) and girlfriend (M) had a stairwell altercation; M initially told officers defendant strangled her and showed neck injuries.
Officers Johnson and Lebrecht interviewed defendant; after Johnson read Miranda warnings, defendant said, “Can I call my mom? She’s a lawyer.”
Officers continued questioning; defendant made incriminating statements about contact near M’s throat and later was detained, reread Miranda, and made further admissions to officer Dillon.
At trial M recanted key statements; defendant testified denying choking. The jury convicted on strangulation and fourth-degree assault.
On appeal defendant sought suppression of statements made after his request to call his mother, arguing the request was an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel under Article I, §12 (Oregon Constitution).
The trial court denied suppression; the appellate court reviewed whether the request was an unequivocal invocation and whether admission was harmless error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant’s statement "Can I call my mom? She’s a lawyer" was an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel under Article I, §12	State: the request was equivocal (a question), not an explicit request for legal advice; officers could ask clarifying questions	Defendant: request was immediate response to Miranda warnings and expressed present desire to consult counsel (mom is an attorney), so questioning must have stopped	Court: statement, in context, was an unequivocal invocation; officers should have ceased questioning
Whether follow-up questioning and later statements were admissible after invocation	State: even if equivocal, officers could clarify; defendant then waived the right and continued voluntarily	Defendant: no valid waiver after unequivocal invocation; subsequent statements inadmissible	Court: follow-up was impermissible; post-invocation statements inadmissible
Whether erroneous admission of those statements was harmless error	State: evidence included other statements and M’s initial reports; admission harmless	Defendant: admission undermined defense and M’s recantation; not harmless	Court: error was not harmless; reversal required
Whether other claimed errors (trial continuance, self-defense instruction) required review given reversal on suppression issue	State: N/A	Defendant: raised but contingent on suppression outcome	Court: unnecessary to address due to reversal on suppression issue

State v. Avila-Nava, 356 Or. 600 (review standard for custodial interrogation facts and invocation context)
State v. Isom, 306 Or. 587 (unequivocal invocation requires questioning to cease)
State v. Meade, 327 Or. 335 (police may ask clarifying questions when invocation is equivocal)
State v. Dahlen, 209 Or. App. 110 ("When can I call an attorney?" can be an unequivocal invocation)
State v. Alarcon, 259 Or. App. 462 (similar holding: a request to call a lawyer can be an unequivocal invocation)
State v. Burghardt, 234 Or. App. 61 (reference to an attorney does not automatically invoke right absent intent to seek legal advice)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (due-process hearing required for voluntariness challenges)
State v. Scott, 343 Or. 195 (Article I, §12 derivative right to counsel during custodial interrogation)