In a capital trial the jury found defendant guilty of the first-degree murder of Charles Mitchell Oakley and recоmmended a sentence of life imprisonment. The trial court sentenced defendant accоrdingly. This Court found no error in part but remanded
On 19 September 1992 сustomers of the victim’s store found the victim, Charles Mitchell Oakley, incoherent and bleeding from a blow to his head that ultimately proved fatal. The customers notified the police.
On 21 September 1992 Wilmington police officers interviewed defendant on unrelated rape charges. They notified defеndant of his right to remain silent and of his right to an attorney. They testified that defendant stated his willingness to speаk to them without an attorney present. Defendant testified that he requested that his mother and a lawyеr be present during questioning.
On 4 November 1992, while defendant was in jail on a charge of rape, Wilmington officers interviewed him about the murder in this case. They notified defendant of his right to remain silent and of his right to an аttorney. Initially, defendant waived his right to an attor ney and stated his willingness to speak to the officers. Dеfendant made several inculpatory statements and then requested an attorney. The officers ceased their interview when defendant requested an attorney. The trial court admitted statements from the 4 November 1992 interrogation in the murder trial.
Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficiеnt to support the trial court’s finding that he waived his right to counsel on 21 September 1992. Defendant asserts thаt he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel on that date and that this request preserved his right to have counsel present at all future interrogations, even those relating to different charges. Thus, defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting his statements of 4 November 1992 because they were solicited after he invoked his right to an attorney and should have been excluded as a violation of
Miranda v. Arizona,
The United Statеs Supreme Court and this Court have held that once a defendant requests an attorney, law enforcement officers may no longer initiate questioning.
Edwards v. Arizona,
The record сontains substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s finding that defendant never invoked his Fifth Amendment rights at the 21 September 1992 interrogation and that statements defendant made on 4 Novеmber 1992 were made after defendant had voluntarily waived such rights. Investigating officers testified as follows:
Detective Bryan Pettus testified that he stayed in the interrogation room the entire time defendant was questioned on 21 September 1992. He testified:
Q. When you talked to [defendant] on September the 21st, 1992, with Detective Hayes, he never invoked his right to an attorney at that time, did he?
A. No, sir, he did not.
Detective A.S. Hayes testified that hе read defendant his rights prior to the 21 September questioning. He informed defendant of his right to remain silent and to an attorney. Defendant indicated that he understood those rights, and defendant waived those rights. Hayes testified further:
Q. Did [defendant] at any time ask you or Detective Pettus on that day, September the 21st, for an attorney?
A. No.
Q. Did he indicate to you that he was willing to talk to you without an attorney being present?
A. Yes.
Detective Jeff Allsbrook testified that he read defendant his rights prior to the 4 November 1992 questioning. He testified:
Q. Did [defendant] ask you for an attorney after you read him the rights form?
A. Right after I read his rights, no, sir.
Q. He did not?
A. No, sir.
Q. He indicated he was willing to talk to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Never asked that you call him an attorney?
A. No.
Allsbrook testified that defendant requested an attorney for the first time after defendant made several inculpatory statements. He explained that as soon as defendant said “lawyer,” Allsbrook stopped questioning defendant.
The fоregoing testimony supports findings that defendant was informed of his right to an attorney on both 21 September 1992 аnd on 4 November 1992, that he never requested an attorney on 21 September 1992, and that he requested аn attorney on 4 November 1992 only after making several inculpatory statements. The record
thus cоntains substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings that defendant never invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before or during the 21 September questioning. The findings are binding on this Court.
Eason,
AFFIRMED.