State v. Hickman, 410 P.3d 1102

Defendant was arrested in Las Vegas on suspicion of murdering his cousin in Multnomah County; Oregon detectives Snider and Crate interviewed him in custody after giving Miranda warnings.
During the interview defendant said he would "rather have my lawyer with me," which the parties agree was at least an equivocal invocation of the right to counsel.
Detective Snider responded by saying "that's completely your right," then continued to press for defendant's side and made further comments that prompted defendant to make incriminating statements (including that the shooting was an accident).
The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress those post-invocation statements; defendant was convicted of first-degree manslaughter with a firearm.
On appeal the court considered whether the detectives’ follow-up questions were permissible clarification of an equivocal invocation, whether defendant later waived the invoked right, and whether admission of the recording was harmless error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether detectives lawfully continued questioning after an equivocal invocation of the right to counsel	Statements were voluntary or constituted waiver/initiative by defendant	Detective continuation violated Article I, §12 because defendant equivocated and police did not properly clarify	Detective responses were not permissible clarification; continued interrogation violated Article I, §12
Whether defendant subsequently waived his invoked right by reinitiating conversation or otherwise	Defendant either reinitiated conversation or voluntarily waived after discussion	No valid waiver: no re‑Mirandize, no reasonable break, statements were product of continued interrogation	No valid waiver: neither lawful reinitiation nor spontaneous initiation occurred
Whether the erroneously admitted interrogation recording was harmless error	Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable likelihood of affecting verdict	Admission was prejudicial because defendant’s admission supported state’s theory and undermined defense	Error was not harmless; it likely affected the jury’s verdict

State v. Avila-Nava, 356 Or. 600 (2014) (framework for evaluating equivocal vs unequivocal invocation)
State v. James, 339 Or. 476 (2005) (standard of review for invocation issues)
State v. Schrepfer, 288 Or. App. 429 (2017) (police must ask follow-up questions to clarify equivocal invocations)
State v. Alarcon, 259 Or. App. 462 (2013) (repeating Miranda warnings does not suffice to clarify equivocal invocation)
State v. McAnulty, 356 Or. 432 (2014) (standards for valid waiver after invocation; reinitiation/re-Mirandize analysis)
State v. Sanelle, 287 Or. App. 611 (2017) (burden on state to prove waiver and harmless-error approach tied to influence on verdict)
State v. Boyd, 360 Or. 302 (2016) (consequences when invocation is unequivocal; reinitiation vs generalized questions)
State v. Meade, 327 Or. 335 (1998) (discussion of reinitiation and waiver by defendant’s unprompted statements)
State v. Holcomb, 213 Or. App. 168 (2007) (harmless-error inquiry focuses on likelihood error affected verdict)
State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (2003) (harmless-error principles)
State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or. 703 (2012) (factors to assess whether post-violation statements reflect true waiver)
State v. Scott, 343 Or. 195 (2007) (Article I, §12 protects right to counsel and right against self-incrimination)
State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or. 631 (2006) (custodial interrogation standard under Article I, §12)
State v. Shaff, 209 Or. App. 68 (2006) (importance of defendant's direct admissions to jury verdict)