State v. Rose

When determining whether a defendant has invoked his or her right to remain silent the court should view the “words that the defendant identifies as having amounted to an unequivocal invocation” and “view[] [them] in isolation before examin[ing] the context in which the statements were made.” State v. Nichols, 361 Or 101, 390 P3d 1001 (2017).

Defendant appealed from the trial court's determination to not suppress statements made after he said, "I don't have anything to say." Defendant assigned error to the trial court's conclusion that his statement, "I don't have anything to say," was neither an unequivocal nor equivocal invocation of his right against self-incrimination. On remand, following the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Nichols, 361 Or 101, 390 P3d 1001 (2017), Defendant argued that his statement was either an equivocal or an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent. In response, the State argued Defendant's statement "did not directly convey" an intention to invoke his right against self-incrimination. When determining whether a defendant has invoked his or her right to remain silent the court will view the “words that the defendant identifies as having amounted to an unequivocal invocation” and “'view[s] [them] in isolation' before it examine[s] the context in which the statements were made.”  State v. Nichols, 361 Or 101, 390 P3d 1001 (2017). The Court held that Defendant equivocally invoked his right to remain silent because a reasonable officer could have thought Defendant's statement was an invocation of his right to remain silent. The Court also concluded because the officer did not stop and clarify whether Defendant was invoking his right, the trial court erred in not suppressing the statement's made after Defendant's invocation. 

Reversed and remanded.