Benjamin v. State - 116 So. 3d 115 (Miss. 2013)

Rule:

Pursuant to Miranda, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' privilege against compelled self-incrimination requires that, before any custodial interrogation may occur, the accused must be informed of his right to counsel and right to remain silent. Once the accused is informed of those rights, custodial interrogation may proceed provided the accused knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives the rights. If the accused chooses to remain silent, then interrogation must cease. If the accused invokes his right to counsel, then interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.

Facts:

Defendant Tevin James Benjamin, who was 14 years old at the time of the murder, was in custody and invoked his right to counsel. The police officers told defendant that he had to spend the night in jail. Defendant’s mother pressured defendant into relinquishing his request for an attorney and talking to the police. On the pretext that he could avoid a night in jail, the police officers interrogated defendant.  Defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress his statement, arguing that, because the police unconstitutionally reinitiated interrogation after his invoked his right to counsel, his statement was given in violation of Miranda. According to the defendant, the police had used his mother to prompt his reinitiation of interrogation, and that his waiver of rights was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The trial court found that, after defendant had invoked his right to counsel, the officers had made no statements in an attempt to elicit a response, and that defendant’s waiver of rights was freely, knowingly, and voluntarily made. Defendant was found guilty of murder with the underlying felony of robbery. Defendant challenged the decision.

Issue:

Was the defendant’s statement to the police taken in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), thereby, warranting the reversal of the defendant’s conviction?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court held that after the defendant invoked his right to counsel, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, interrogation had to cease until an attorney was present. By encouraging defendant's belief that, by talking to the police, he could avoid a night in jail, and by allowing his mother to speak with him after instructing her on how defendant could reinitiate questioning, the police used tactics that constituted the functional equivalent of interrogation. Therefore, the Court held that the defendant's waiver was not made with full awareness of the nature of his right to counsel and the consequences of abandoning it. The Court concluded that the trial court manifestly erred in failing to suppress defendant's statement to the police. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and remanded.