Vargas-Salguero v. State
185 A.3d 793
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- On Sept. 6, 2014, Prince George’s County detectives arrested Mynor Vargas‑Salguero on an arrest warrant (murder, robbery, armed robbery) and interrogated him in Spanish and English after giving Miranda warnings.
- During the interview Vargas‑Salguero said in Spanish, “si me acusan de eso quiero un abogado mejor” (translated in the record as “I better want an attorney”) and later said twice that he did not want to say anything more.
- Detectives momentarily left the room after the first statement; on return they acknowledged he had asked for a lawyer, re‑advised Miranda rights, and resumed questioning; a multi‑hour interrogation followed and Vargas‑Salguero made incriminating admissions and a partial confession.
- At the suppression hearing the police transcript omitted some Spanish utterances visible on video; detectives testified the request for counsel and silence were ambiguous and that they re‑advised rights out of caution.
- The circuit court denied suppression; after trial Vargas‑Salguero was convicted of second‑degree felony murder (and related counts merged); he appealed arguing Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations.
Issues
| Issue | Vargas‑Salguero's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vargas‑Salguero invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation | His Spanish statement asking for a lawyer was an unambiguous invocation requiring cessation of questioning | The statement was ambiguous, so officers were not required to stop | Court held he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel; officers violated Miranda by continuing interrogation |
| Whether Vargas‑Salguero invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent | He twice told officers he had nothing more to say and thereby invoked the right to silence | Statements were ambiguous and officers reasonably re‑initiated questioning after re‑advising rights | Court held he invoked the right to remain silent; re‑initiation after re‑advisal violated Edwards/Miranda |
| Whether the admission of Vargas‑Salguero's statements was harmless error | Confession and admissions were highly probative and damaging; not harmless | State argued convictions could stand despite the statements | Court held error was not harmless and reversed the conviction |
| Whether Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached at time of interrogation | Vargas‑Salguero argued arrest with statement of charges triggered Sixth Amendment right to counsel | State argued the issue was not preserved and, substantively, Sixth Amendment had not attached pre‑indictment | Court held the argument was preserved but Sixth Amendment had not yet attached (no indictment/information); only Fifth Amendment protections applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Sup. Ct. 1966) (custodial suspects must be warned of rights to silence and counsel; interrogation must cease if counsel is requested)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (invocation of Miranda rights must be unambiguous; ambiguous statements do not require cessation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (once a suspect requests counsel, police may not reinitiate interrogation unless counsel is present or suspect initiates)
- Ballard v. State, 420 Md. 480 (Md. 2011) (colloquial or deferential language can nonetheless be an unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel)
- Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (totality of circumstances governs voluntariness and invocation questions)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (constitutional error must be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt to be preserved)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (confessions are highly probative and prejudicial; impact on jury is substantial)