Statements Properly Suppressed After Equivocal Request for Counsel

Minnesota v. McKinnie, Minn.Ct.App., Unpublished, 4/14/2009.  Police arrested Mr. McKinnie on suspicion of robbery, assault and second degree murder.  During a custodial interrogation, Mr. McKinnie stated that he could not afford at attorney in response to the Miranda warning.  Eventually, the interrogating detective incorrectly told Mr. McKinnie that he would not have an attorney appointed to represent him until he made his first court appearance.  In the remainder of this first interrogation, as well as in a second interrogation, Mr. McKinnie made incriminating statements.  The Court of Appeals upholds the trial court's ruling suppressing both statements, but reverses the trial court's ruling that the statements could not be used for impeachment in the event that Mr. McKinnie testified.  See State v. Slowinski, 450 N.W.2d 107, 111 (Minn. 1990).

The Miranda colloquy is worth setting out:

The Constitution requires that I inform you that you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used in court as evidence against you. You are entitled to talk to a lawyer now. And have him present now. Or at any time during questioning.
. . . .
If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost.
Respondent immediately responded, “I can‟t afford one.” The following exchange between the detective and respondent then took place:
Q. Do you understand these rights?
A. Yes I do.
3
Q. All right. Do you wish to talk to me at this time?
A. I will talk to you.
Q. Okay.
A. But I still can‟t afford a lawyer.
Q. Oh. Okay. Well that‟s . . . but you wanna talk to me right?
A. Yeah. I‟ll talk to you.
Q. Okay.
A. I have no problem with it.
. . . .
A. . . . I don‟t have no money for no lawyer because I lost my job.
Q. . . . if you can‟t afford one the state will afford a lawyer for you.
A. Can he be here right now?
Q. That‟s your choice Danya.
A. Could he be right now though?
Q. Do you want a lawyer?
A. (Inaudible).
Q. No not right now. Not right now. If you want a . . . lawyer while in questioning.
A. Mhm-hum. And represent I have to sit here.
Q. But no. If you wanna talk to me you can talk to me.
A. No. What I‟m---no what I‟m asking is if I had to wait on a lawyer I would have to sit here (inaudible) until he got here right?
Q. Right.
Next, the detective attempted to explain to respondent how an attorney would be appointed:
Q. When you went to court then a lawyer will be appointed for you at that time. Okay. That‟s how it works.
A. Okay.
4
Q. You can‟t get a court appointed . . . lawyer . . . the way I understand it until you‟ve been charged with something.
A. No because I would like you know what I‟m sayin‟? What‟s that that they do consultants and everything like---we---talk to somebody or whatnot. It is like a consultant.
Q. . . . I don‟t know anything about that Danya. I don‟t.
A. Because I don‟t wanna sit here. . . .

 

Here, the interrogating detective went beyond asking questions to clarify Mr. McKinnie's equivocal request for counsel.  State v. Risk, 598 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 1999).  The trial court properly suppressed the resulting statements.  State v. Robinson, 427 N.W.2d, 217, 222 (Minn. 1988).