State v. Hudson, 2018 Ohio 981

Appellant Adam Hudson was indicted for murder and burglary; he pleaded no contest to murder and was sentenced to 15 years to life, consecutive to remaining postrelease control time.
Hudson was brought to the police station, sat in an interview room with the door closed, had his phone taken, and officers discussed his parole status; officers initially told him he was not under arrest.
During the interview Hudson twice invoked his right to counsel (at ~22 and ~68 minutes), and officers ceased substantive questioning about the crime during those intervals.
About 75 minutes into the interview Hudson asked if he could "take back" his request for an attorney; officers spent time confirming his clarity, warned about possible impairment from marijuana, and then provided a written Miranda waiver.
After signing the waiver following a careful rights explanation and repeat-back, Hudson confessed to killing Thomas Mead; he was then arrested.
The trial court denied Hudson’s motion to suppress; on appeal the Fourth District affirmed, finding Hudson initiated further communication and validly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights under the totality of the circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hudson)	Held
Was Hudson "in custody" for Miranda?	Miranda attached because circumstances made a reasonable person not feel free to leave	Hudson contended he was effectively in custody at the station and subject to custodial interrogation	Court assumed custody for argument and proceeded (not dispositive)
Did Hudson validly invoke right to counsel, and did officers continue interrogation?	Hudson did invoke counsel; but he later initiated further discussion permitting waiver analysis	Hudson argued his invocation barred further interrogation and subsequent waiver was invalid	Court: Hudson did invoke counsel, but he later initiated further communications ("take back" request)
Was subsequent waiver knowing and voluntary after invocation?	Waiver was knowing/voluntary: officers clarified intent, assessed impairment, provided written warnings and obtained repeat-back	Hudson argued impairment, hunger, and inducement (food) undermined voluntariness	Court: Under totality, waiver was knowing and voluntary; no coercion, mistreatment, or effective impairment shown
Should pre- and post-Miranda statements be suppressed?	Statements admissible: pre-Miranda were uncoercive; post-Miranda followed valid waiver	Hudson sought suppression based on Miranda and Fifth Amendment privilege	Court denied suppression; statements admissible and trial court judgment affirmed

Miranda v. Arizona, [citation="384 U.S. 436"] (establishes custodial warnings required before interrogation)
Edwards v. Arizona, [citation="451 U.S. 477"] (once right to counsel invoked, further interrogation prohibited unless accused initiates or valid waiver)
Oregon v. Elstad, [citation="470 U.S. 298"] (post-warning confession can be admissible if waiver is voluntary despite earlier unwarned statements)
Oregon v. Bradshaw, [citation="462 U.S. 1039"] (totality-of-the-circumstances voluntariness test for post-invocation waiver)
State v. Burnside, [citation="100 Ohio St.3d 152"] (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)