State v. Hurst, 258 P.3d 950

Hurst was convicted of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen based on statements after interrogation.
A detective spoke with Hurst at his place of employment; later, Hurst was arrested, read Miranda rights, and confessed during an interview at the sheriff's office.
Hurst moved to suppress his statements, arguing an invocation of counsel at work should bar later interrogation.
The district court denied suppression, holding invocation must occur during custodial interrogation to preclude further questioning.
Hurst pled guilty conditionally, the district court sentenced to 30 years with 5 years fixed, retained jurisdiction, later relinquished jurisdiction and reduced fixed term to 4 years, then denied a further Rule 35 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must invoke right to counsel be made during custody?	Hurst argues invocation valid irrespective of custody.	Hurst contends Edwards/Miranda protections apply upon invocation regardless of custody.	Invocation requires custody; not satisfied here.
Was Hurst in custody when he invoked at his workplace?	Invocation occurred during non-custodial encounter; custody not shown.	The detective's conduct and setting show custodial restraint.	Hurst was not in custody before formal arrest; suppression upheld only if custody existed.
Whether relinquishment of jurisdiction was an abuse of discretion given good performance on retained jurisdiction	Performance and treatment support probation.	Good performance does not compel probation; sentencing goals justify no probation.	No abuse of discretion; relinquishment affirmed.
Whether the district court properly denied a second Rule 35 motion for sentence reduction	Oral motion at rider review should count as Rule 35 motion; second motion allowed if not written.	Rule 35 bars more than one motion; oral and written are interchangeable; second motion barred.	Rule 35 limits to a single motion; written or oral; second motion denied.

Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. _, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010) (explains Fifth Amendment right to counsel and Edwards safeguards)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (second-layer protection; counsel must be present after invocation)
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991) (invocation outside custodial context not sufficient to preclude questioning)
Edwards; Roberson, Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988) (prolonged custody increases coercion risk; Edwards safeguard applied)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (custody is objective, not subjective; totality of circumstances test)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (custody analysis considers freedom to leave and interrogation context)
State v. James, 148 Idaho 574 (2010) (Idaho test for custody includes totality of circumstances)
State v. Albaugh, 133 Idaho 587 (1999) (factors for custody include interrogation setting and presence of others)
State v. Medrano, 123 Idaho 114 (1992) (review of custody factors on interrogation)
State v. Wersland, 125 Idaho 499 (1994) (Rule 35 motion timing and preclusion principles)