State v. Tellez-Suarez

"In determining whether there was an invocation [of the right to counsel] at all, and if so, whether it was equivocal or unequivocal, [the court] look[s] to 'the defendant's words, in light of the totality of the circumstances at and preceding the time they were uttered, to ascertain whether a reasonable officer would have understood that the defendant was invoking that right.'" State v. Avila-Nava, 356 Or 600, 609, 341 P3d 714 (2014).

Defendant appealed convictions for one count of first-degree unlawful penetration and three counts of first-degree sexual abuse. Defendant assigned error to the trial court for admitting video of his interview with the police despite his invocation of counsel. On appeal, Defendant argued that his statement, "I don't have a lawyer right now, but let's continue," served as an equivocal invocation of his right to counsel and the officers violated his right by failing to confirm the invocation. In response, the State made two arguments: (1) the statement should be reviewed as a whole, and (2) in light of the totality of the circumstances, the officers could not have reasonably been alerted that Defendant was invoking his right to counsel. "In determining whether there was an invocation [of the right to counsel] at all, and if so, whether it was equivocal or unequivocal, [the court] look[s] to 'the defendant's words, in light of the totality of the circumstances at and preceding the time they were uttered, to ascertain whether a reasonable officer would have understood that the defendant was invoking that right.'" State v. Avila-Nava, 356 Or 600, 609, 341 P3d 714 (2014). The Court held that, in light of the circumstances surrounding Defendant's statement, no reasonable officer would have understood that he was invoking his right to counsel. Reversed and remanded.