State v. Palacio, 442 P.3d 466

On May 6–7, 2015 a shot fired from a Glock killed Allie Saum; police traced the gun to the defendant, Macio Palacio Jr., after his girlfriend was found concealing the weapon.
Palacio was arrested, Mirandized, and initially agreed to talk; during the interview he said he wanted to speak to an attorney.
Officers made several declarative statements and asked routine questions (e.g., about prior convictions and charges) immediately after Palacio asked for counsel; afterward Palacio said he wanted to continue without a lawyer and then confessed he fired the gun.
Palacio moved to change venue based on pretrial publicity and separately moved to suppress his post‑invocation statements as Miranda violations and coerced.
The district court denied the venue motion, suppressed only the narrow responses given after the invocation (about convictions/charges), denied broader suppression, found Palacio validly re‑initiated and waived counsel, and held the confession voluntary.
Jury convicted Palacio of first‑degree murder (premeditation and felony murder), attempted first‑degree murder, criminal discharge of a firearm, and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery; the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to change venue under K.S.A. 22‑2616	Pretrial publicity so pervasive defendant couldn’t get a fair jury	Publicity did not create community prejudice sufficient to require change	Trial court did not abuse discretion; denial affirmed
Whether officers continued interrogation after Palacio invoked right to counsel	Questions and comments after invocation were interrogation and violated Miranda	Post‑invocation comments were routine/declarative (not interrogation); Palacio later re‑initiated conversation	Officers’ statements/questions were not interrogation under Innis test; no Miranda violation
Whether Palacio re‑initiated and validly waived previously invoked counsel	Any post‑invocation statements were the product of police initiation; waiver invalid	Palacio affirmatively asked officers to sit and said he wanted to speak without an attorney, evincing desire to re‑engage	Court found Palacio knowingly and intelligently re‑initiated and waived counsel
Whether confession was involuntary/coerced	Even if waiver valid, confession was coerced by officers’ tactics (charges, sympathy appeals)	No threats, deception, or improper promises; tactics were permissible and not coercive	Under totality of circumstances, confession voluntary; suppression denial affirmed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and right to counsel during custodial interrogation)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (definition of "interrogation": police words/actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (once counsel requested, interrogation must cease unless counsel present or suspect reinitiates)
Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (routine booking questions exception to Miranda)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (Miranda principles and voluntariness can be distinct)
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (coerced confessions inadmissible under Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments)
State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230 (once invoked, questioning must cease; resumption only after counsel or reinitiation)
State v. Longoria, 301 Kan. 489 (change of venue standard and factors)
State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1 (severity of offense weighs in venue analysis)
State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61 (question constituted interrogation where officers should have known it would elicit incriminating response)
State v. Thurber, 308 Kan. 140 (discussion unrelated to investigation not interrogation; reinitiation analysis)
State v. Swindler, 296 Kan. 670 (voluntariness/totality of circumstances test for coerced confessions)
State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18 (officer lies and threats can render confession involuntary)
State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13 (deceptive statements suggesting forensic evidence can indicate coercion)