State v. J. Nixon
2013 MT 81
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Nixon was convicted after a five-day July 2011 trial of accountability for deliberate homicide, robbery, tampering with physical evidence, and burglary.
- The State charged Nixon with causing Wesley Collins’s death and later amended to multiple felonies.
- Police investigated Collins’s disappearance starting April 17–18, 2010, leading to Nixon’s custodial interrogation.
- Nixon was arrested on misdemeanor warrants, transported to the Kalispell Police Station, and videotaped during questioning.
- Nixon was read Miranda rights, signed a waiver, and provided statements during a police interview about the homicide.
- Nixon moved to suppress the custodial statements; the District Court denied the motion and the jury convicted Nixon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nixon unambiguously invoked the right to remain silent | Nixon asserted words indicating silence | Berghuis standard requires clear invocation | No unambiguous invocation; interrogation could continue |
| Whether Nixon waived his Miranda rights voluntarily | Waiver was involuntary due to intoxication, sleep deprivation, form confusion, or deception | Waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under totality of circumstances | Waiver valid; statements admissible |
| Whether the officers properly clarified potential invocation and maintained rights | Clarifying questions were improper or unnecessary | Clarification protects rights and avoids second-guessing | Clarifying questions appropriate; rights scrupulously honored |
Key Cases Cited
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (no principled reason to treat invoke of silence differently from counsel; must be unambiguous)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (ambiguity in invoking the right to counsel; same standard applied to silence)
- Morrisey v. State, 351 P.3d 708 (Mont. 2009) (invocation must be sufficiently clear; scrupulous handling of questioning)
- Main v. State, 360 Mont. 470 (Mont. 2011) (two-dimension waiver test: voluntary and intelligent under totality of circumstances)
- Mann v. State, 130 P.3d 164 (Mont. 2006) (waiver form clarity; not per se disqualifying if understood)
- Hoffman v. State, 64 P.3d 1013 (Mont. 2003) (totality of circumstances; intoxication without impairment can still permit waiver)
- Scheffer v. State, 230 P.3d 462 (Mont. 2010) (counsel invocation rights clarified by Davis framework)
- Myran v. State, 289 P.3d 118 (Mont. 2012) (Montana constitution not expanding right beyond federal standard here)
- Covington v. State, 272 P.3d 43 (Mont. 2012) (analysis of unique Montana constitutional protections)
- Jones v. State, 142 P.3d 851 (Mont. 2006) (invocation not unequivocal when not clearly stated)
- Loh v. State, 914 P.2d 592 (Mont. 1996) (threats or coercion considerations in voluntariness)