State v. Gardner, 428 P.3d 58

Police investigated allegations that Gardner raped a 14‑year‑old (Victim) multiple times; Victim and Gardner’s son provided incriminating statements and Victim was reportedly pregnant with Gardner’s child.
Gardner was Mirandized, acknowledged understanding, then immediately asked for an attorney.
Before officers could contact counsel, Gardner began speaking voluntarily about threats from Victim’s mother and other unprompted matters; he repeatedly reinitiated conversation after officers attempted to honor his request for counsel.
After being told officers had enough evidence to arrest him, Gardner asked them to stay and ultimately said, “I’m taking responsibility for me. I did it.”
Gardner moved to suppress the confession as obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel; the district court denied suppression, the jury convicted him on eleven rape counts, and Gardner appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gardner)	Held
Motion to suppress: whether Gardner’s post‑Miranda confession was obtained in violation of his right to counsel	The State: Gardner voluntarily initiated the exchanges about the crime after invoking counsel, so he waived his right and confession is admissible	Gardner: He invoked his right to counsel and the officers continued interrogation in violation of Edwards/Miranda	The court held Gardner voluntarily and knowingly waived his right by initiating further discussion; suppression denial affirmed
District court’s rejection of plea agreement: whether court exceeded discretion in refusing the Alford plea	The State: Court properly considered plea’s timing, evidence, and the public interest in rejecting an inadequate deal	Gardner: Court improperly rejected the plea deal reached by the parties	Not preserved on appeal (Gardner did not object or seek a ruling below); court did not reach the merits
Ineffective assistance of counsel: whether trial counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial	Gardner: Counsel failed to introduce various exculpatory materials and investigate alleged officer misconduct	The State: Record lacks support for these claims; Gardner’s Rule 23B motion to expand the record was denied	Court held claims inadequately briefed and unsupported in the record; no showing of prejudice; claim fails

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and right to counsel requirement for custodial interrogation)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (suspect’s unambiguous request for counsel bars further interrogation unless suspect initiates contact)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (request for counsel must be unambiguous to invoke Edwards protections)
Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (waiver analysis considers totality of circumstances, including accused’s background and conduct)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Tripp, 227 P.3d 1251 (Utah precedent: scope of appellate review on suppression rulings)