State v. Gray, 2017 Ohio 563

Ernest Gray, 73, voluntarily went to the police station and was Mirandized, waived rights, and was interviewed about alleged sexual touching of a 6-year-old relative.
Two detectives interviewed Gray intermittently over ~2.5 hours; interrogation began at 9:05 a.m.; the incriminating statements occurred after ~10:18 a.m.
About 50 minutes into the interview, after repeated denials, Gray said phrases including “I’m just gonna leave it like that” and “I don’t have nothin’ else to say.”
Detectives left Gray alone to write; Gray then reengaged and made admissions describing the touching and asking the child not to report it.
Trial court suppressed all statements made after 9:57 a.m., concluding Gray had unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent and that his confession was involuntary.
The State appealed; the appellate court reviewed whether Gray unequivocally invoked silence and whether the confession was voluntary under the totality of circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gray)	Held
Whether Gray unambiguously invoked his Miranda right to remain silent	Gray’s “leave it like that” / “nothing else to say” comments were ambiguous and only referred to not elaborating on a prior answer, so questioning could continue	Those statements were an unequivocal invocation of the right to stop questioning	Court: Statements were ambiguous; no unambiguous invocation; suppression on that ground was error
Whether Gray’s confession was voluntary under the Fifth Amendment (totality of circumstances)	Confession was voluntary: Gray was Mirandized, understood rights, not deprived, no threats/promises, and did not unambiguously invoke silence	Interrogation tactics and persistence over an elderly, semi-literate man overbore his will; confession involuntary	Court: Confession was voluntary under totality of circumstances; trial court erred in suppressing on voluntariness ground

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (Miranda waiver and voluntariness framework)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (standard of review on suppression — factual findings deferential, legal conclusions de novo)
State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (ambiguity rule for invocation of the right to remain silent)
State v. House, 54 Ohio St.2d 297 (distinguishing limited noninvocation from invoking Miranda rights)
State v. Otte, 74 Ohio St.3d 555 (voluntariness: will overborne by coercive police conduct)
State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d 20 (deceptive tactics are one factor in voluntariness analysis)
State v. Petitjean, 140 Ohio App.3d 517 (totality-of-the-circumstances approach to voluntariness)