State v. Juttner

If a defendant’s invocation is unequivocal, then the interrogation must cease immediately; however, if the invocation is equivocal, an officer is permitted to either “(1) stop the interrogation or (2) ask the defendant neutral follow-up questions intended to clarify the equivocal nature of the defendant’s statement.” State v. Joaquin, 307 Or App 314, (2020). Moreover, “any questioning not reasonably designed to clarify the equivocal nature of the statement is impermissible.” State v. Schrepfer, 288 Or App 429 (2017).

Defendant appealed his conviction for four counts of first-degree sexual abuse. Defendant argued that the court erred in admitting evidence from an interrogation in which he had unequivocally invoked his Miranda rights. Alternatively, defendant argued that even if his invocation was equivocal, the NCIS agent’s responses to his invocation were unlawful and thus any statements made afterwards should be suppressed. The trial court held that defendant had waived his right to silence after speaking to the agents. “If a defendant’s invocation is unequivocal, then the interrogation must cease immediately; however, if the invocation is equivocal, an officer is permitted to either “(1) stop the interrogation or (2) ask the defendant neutral follow-up questions intended to clarify the equivocal nature of the defendant’s statement.” State v. Joaquin, 307 Or App 314, (2020). Moreover, “any questioning not reasonably designed to clarify the equivocal nature of the statement is impermissible.” State v. Schrepfer, 288 Or App 429 (2017). The Court of Appeals found defendant's alternative argument convincing that defendant's reply to the agent’s interrogation constituted an equivocal invocation, and at a minimum, the inquiry led to whether the agent’s response was intended to clarify the invocation. The Court held that given the context, this was not a neutral and clarifying response because the reply was used to pressure defendant into rethinking his invocation. The trial court erred when it admitted defendant’s statements after invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. REVERSED AND REMANDED.