Stevens v. Commonwealth
57 Va. App. 566
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Stevens was arrested July 22, 2008 for a deadly shooting during a drug deal and questioned by two investigators at a Chatham police station after Miranda rights were read and waived.
- Stevens was later transferred to an unidentified jail for advisement rather than remaining at the original station.
- The next day Stevens was held in a holding cell near the district court; investigators later spoke with him again in a different setting.
- During the second meeting, Stevens said, I want a lawyer, that’s what I need, potentially invoking counsel for custodial interrogation or for court representation.
- Investigators asked clarifying questions about his request to determine whether it related to counsel for interrogation or for trial representation, and Stevens made incriminating statements.
- Stevens moved to suppress these statements as obtained in violation of Miranda/Edwards; the trial court denied the motion; a panel initially reversed on appeal; the en banc court affirmed the convictions, holding the request was ambiguous and clarifying questions were permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stevens unambiguously invoked the right to counsel. | Stevens clearly demanded a lawyer. | Ambiguity due to surrounding circumstances. | Ambiguous, not clear invocation. |
| Whether police could clarify an ambiguous request for counsel. | Clarification was permissible to resolve ambiguity. | Clarifying questions violated invocation. | Police may clarify ambiguity. |
| Effect of ambiguous invocation on admissibility of statements. | Statements obtained after clarification should be suppressed. | Clarification preserved later admissibility. | Statements admissible after lawful clarification. |
| Applicable standard for evaluating an invocation of the right to counsel. | Use Davis/McNeil framework for ambiguity. | Context can render an otherwise clear statement ambiguous. | Contextual ambiguity governs the outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (established right to counsel during custodial interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (right to counsel applies during custodial interrogation; interrogation must cease if invoked)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (ambiguity permits police to clarify whether counsel is desired)
- Hilliard v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 42 (Va. 2005) (Virginia standard on invoking right to counsel; de novo legal question on invocation; facts reviewed for clear error)
- Redmond v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 321 (Va. 2002) (ambiguity analysis when request for counsel is not clear on its face)
- Zektaw v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 127 (Va. 2009) (unequivocal invocation of right to counsel; clarifies need for immediate cessation of interrogation)