State v. King, 300 P.3d 732

King, held in custody for an aggravated battery charge, was interrogated after Miranda warnings were given; he stated he did not wish to answer “at the moment” due to intoxication; the detective pressed him and obtained an incriminating statement; the district court suppression was granted based on an unambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent; the State appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court under §39-3-3(B)(2); the court affirms the district court’s suppression ruling.
King’s statements and actions showed a clear invocation of the right to remain silent, not a vague hesitation; the detective persisted and coerced, undermining Fifth Amendment protections.
The interrogation continued after an unambiguous invocation, violating Mosley’s protection against coercive custodial interrogation after a right to silence is invoked.
The district court correctly suppressed the statement; the interrogation was not scrupulously honored after an unambiguous invocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether King unambiguously invoked the right to remain silent	State contends invocation was equivocal	King clearly said not at the moment, showing an unambiguous invocation	Yes; King unambiguously invoked the right to remain silent
Whether interrogation was scrupulously honored after invocation	Interrogation continued despite invocation	Detective acted within duty after invocation	No; interrogation was not scrupulously honored; statements suppressed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes warning and rights; right to silence must be honored once invoked)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (unambiguous invocation required to halt questioning)
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) (interrogation must cease upon unambiguous invocation; cannot coerce continuation)
State v. Guerra, 278 P.3d 1031 (2012-NMSC-014) (recognizes no requirement to state a reason for invoking rights; no implied waiver)