 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wallace7/22/2004
citizens broader protection under article I, section 10 of the Hawai'i Constitution than that recognized by the Davis majority under the United States Constitution by aligning ourselves with the jurisdictions in the "second camp" described above. Accordingly, we hold that (1) when a suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal request for counsel during custodial interrogation, the police must either cease all questioning or seek non-substantive clarification of the suspect's request, and (2) if, upon clarification, the defendant unambiguously and unequivocally invokes the right to counsel, all substantive questioning must cease until counsel is *1287 present. Conversely, we hold that if, upon clarification, the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waives the presence of counsel, substantive questioning may continue.
Id. at 36, 881 P.2d at 523 (emphases added).
With regard to Hoey's ambiguous statement that he did not have the money to "buy" a lawyer, this court opined that "one could easily draw the conclusion that Hoey had failed to understand that he could have a free lawyer appointed for him and that if he could have afforded a lawyer, he would have wanted one present." Id. at 37, 881 P.2d at 524 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Moreover, the detective's failure to clarify Hoey's ambiguous statement, "which was demonstrably inconsistent with [the detective]' s explanation of Hoey's Miranda rights, left unresolved the question whether Hoey had waived the right to counsel at his interrogation." Id. This court held, therefore, that "the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving that Hoey voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel at his interrogation, as guaranteed by article I, section 10 of the Hawai'i Constitution." Id.
The facts of the instant case stand in stark contrast to the facts in Hoey. Unlike in Hoey, it is undisputed here that Wallace fully understood his Miranda rights. Specifically, Officer Adachi advised Wallace using Form 103 that:
WARNING OF RIGHTS
Before we ask you any questions, we want to tell you about your rights.
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can be used against you in court.
You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advise [sic] before we ask you any questions and to have your lawyer with you during questioning.
If you cannot afford a lawyer one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
....
As stated by the circuit court in FOFs 31 and 32:
31. Officer Adachi[ ] ... read each line to Defendant, out loud, explained
each right, and had Defendant initial next to each right, indicating Defendant understood the right.
32. Officer Adachi then had Defendant sign his name on the form indicating Defendant understood his rights.[ [FN5]]
FN5. The understanding of rights portion of the Form 103 used by Officer Adachi provides in pertinent part:
UNDERSTANDING OF RIGHTS
I understand the English language. I have read and heard this statement of my rights and I understand what my rights are.
Signed /s/ James Wallace Jr.
--------------------------------
Date __________ Time __________
"4/9/02" appears in the date block and "18:35" is listed in the time block.
(Emphases added.) Consequently, this case does not present the issue in Hoey whether an ambiguous or equivocal request for counsel was made during custodial interrogation. Nor does this case present the related issue in Hoey whether the defendant understood the right to counsel. Rather, we are asked to address the issue whether Wallace's refusal to execute a written waiver of Miranda r
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|