Wheeler v. State
289 Ga. 537
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Wheeler was arrested on aggravated sexual battery, cruelty to children, and four counts of child molestation.
- After arrest, officers interviewed Wheeler; he initially indicated willingness to talk but stated he needed to discuss with an attorney before incriminating himself.
- Officers read Miranda rights after Wheeler’s initial comments; Wheeler waived rights and indicated he would talk unless questions could incriminate him.
- Wheeler made incriminating statements, then denied touching the victim; the interview was recorded and later admitted at trial.
- Trial court convicted Wheeler; Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the interrogation was admissible despite Wheeler’s invocation.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the admissibility of Wheeler’s recorded statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wheeler properly invoked counsel during custodial interrogation | Wheeler limited waiver; second request was a proper invocation. | Officers reasonably continued during selective waiver; no unequivocal invocation initially. | Second, unequivocal request triggered cessation; statements inadmissible. |
| Whether the erroneous admission of Wheeler's statements was harmless error | Admission of statements tainted trial for all charges. | Any error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt. | Admission was not harmless; reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manley v. State, 287 Ga. 338, 698 S.E.2d 301 (2010) (clear, unequivocal invocation requires cessation until counsel is provided)
- Robinson v. State, 286 Ga. 42, 684 S.E.2d 863 (2009) (unambiguous request for counsel ends interrogation unless restarted)
- Baird v. State, 263 Ga. 868, 440 S.E.2d 190 (1994) (limited request for counsel may permit selective waiver, not complete cessation)
- Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 107 S. Ct. 828, 93 L. Ed. 2d 920 (1987) (limited request for counsel recognized in Miranda context)
- Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269, 553 S.E.2d 598 (2001) (de novo review of undisputed facts in Miranda analysis)
- Willis v. State, 287 Ga. 703, 699 S.E.2d 1 (2010) (clarity of invocation affects admissibility of statements)
- McDougal v. State, 277 Ga. 493, 591 S.E.2d 788 (2004) (seriousness of charges can influence need for counsel during interrogation)