State v. Ortega
2011 Minn. LEXIS 276
Minn.2011Background
- Troy Ulrich was fatally stabbed in a Claremont, Minnesota garage on February 16, 2008.
- Appellant Danny Ortega Jr. and his associates gathered in Apartment A the day before and later confronted Ulrich in the garage.
- Ortega Sr. participated in the assault; a knife was involved and later linked to Ulrich’s wounds.
- Ortega Jr. was interrogated by BCA agents on February 16, 2008 and February 18, 2008, after being advised of rights.
- Ortega Jr. filed a pretrial motion to suppress his statements on grounds that he invoked his rights to silence and to counsel; the district court denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Ortega Jr. of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder; the sentence was life without parole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ortega invoked the right to remain silent clearly enough to stop questioning. | Ortega clearly invoked silence with 'I ain’t got nothin’ else to say... I’m through.' | The invocation was ambiguous and not unequivocal under the circumstances. | Ambiguous invocation; interrogation continued without clear cessation. |
| Whether Ortega unequivocally invoked the right to counsel and whether officers properly clarified an equivocal request. | Ortega asked if a lawyer should be present, constituting an equivocal request; officers failed to stop and properly clarify. | Miranda warnings and minimal clarifications were sufficient; no unequivocal request for counsel. | Officers properly clarified the equivocal request; no obligation to stop beyond narrow questioning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes Miranda rights and admissibility conditions for custodial interrogations)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (requires scrupulous honoring of invoked rights to silence)
- State v. Williams, 535 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1995) (Minnesota standard for invocation of right to silence)
- State v. Day, 619 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. 2000) (establishes objective reasonable-officer standard for invocations)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (requires unambiguous invocation of right to silence under federal law)
- State v. Robinson, 427 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. 1988) (stop-and-clarify rule for equivocal requests for counsel)
- State v. Risk, 598 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 1999) (Minnesota rule extending protection for equivocal requests for counsel)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (clarifies that interrogators need not clarify an unequivocal request for counsel under federal law)
- State v. Chavarria-Cruz, 784 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 2010) (recognizes heightened protection for right to counsel under Minnesota law)