State v. Dodge

A suspect equivocally invokes their right to counsel, "when the suspect's statements or request is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, one of which is that he or she is invoking the right to counsel. State v. Roberts, 291 Or App 124, 132, 418 P3d 41 (2018). "The question is whether a reasonable officer would have understood 'at least one plausible meaning' of the suspect's ambiguous statement or question 'to be that defendant was invoking the right to counsel.'" Id. at 133.

Defendant appealed from a conviction of four counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of second-degree unlawful sexual penetration. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements he made during an interview. On appeal, Defendant argued that he unambiguously invoked his right to counsel when he stated, “[s]ounds like I need a lawyer ‘cause that never happened,'” and therefore the integration should have immediately ended. In response, the State argued that Defendant did not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel. A suspect equivocally invokes their right to counsel, "when the suspect's statements or request is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, one of which is that he or she is invoking the right to counsel. State v. Roberts, 291 Or App 124, 132, 418 P3d 41 (2018). "The question is whether a reasonable officer would have understood 'at least one plausible meaning' of the suspect's ambiguous statement or question 'to be that defendant was invoking the right to counsel.'" Id. at 133. The Court held that a reasonable officer would have understood that the relevant statement could have indicated Defendant had asserted his right to counsel, or at the very least, a reasonable officer would have understood that the Defendant might have been invoking his right to counsel.

Reversed and remanded.