State v. Wirkkala, 414 P.3d 421

Defendant shot and killed a man at his home after they had been drinking; defendant later claimed self-defense and voluntary intoxication.
Police conducted an ~8-minute custodial interrogation at the station; Detective Knea read Miranda warnings and asked preliminary questions.
After about five minutes, defendant said, "I think I'm going to get a lawyer," then, shortly after, answered one pending question identifying the victim by name; interrogation continued with officers pressing and provoking him.
Trial court struck the invocation from the record but denied suppression of the post-invocation portion of the interrogation; the state played that video and highlighted defendant's hostile demeanor to undermine self-defense at closing.
Defendant was convicted of murder and appealed, arguing police impermissibly continued interrogation after he invoked his right to counsel and that the ensuing statements should have been suppressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant waived his Miranda right to counsel by answering a single follow-up question after saying he wanted a lawyer	State: defendant waived because he immediately answered the pending question, showing willingness to continue	Defendant: his request for counsel was an unequivocal invocation and answering the one question did not constitute a voluntary reinitiation or waiver	Court: No waiver — police should have ceased questioning after invocation; officer's follow-up statements were improper interrogation
Whether admission of the post-invocation footage was harmless error	State: error was harmless because video was used only to show demeanor, not substantive admissions	Defendant: video was important and unique impeachment evidence on self-defense and demeanor	Court: Error was not harmless — video was important, not cumulative, and could have affected verdict

State v. Pitt, 352 Or. 566 (discussing scope of reviewing pretrial suppression record)
State v. Meade, 327 Or. 335 (when invocation of counsel stops questioning; subsequent waiver standard)
State v. Scott, 343 Or. 195 (prohibition on interrogation after invocation; Innis standard for eliciting incriminating response)
State v. McAnulty, 356 Or. 432 (examples of reinitiation showing willingness to discuss investigation)
State v. Kramyer, 222 Or.App. 193 (field-sobriety continuation after request for counsel — contrasted case)
State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
State v. Maiden, 222 Or.App. 9 (assessing importance of erroneously admitted evidence to party's theory)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (definition of interrogation as words or actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)