By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 14, 2012//
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Criminal
Criminal Procedure — right to counsel
Where the defendant unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, his statement should have been suppressed.
“[T]he record makes clear that Conner unequivocally requested an attorney. The first time Conner requested counsel, he said ‘I want to talk to ya’ll, but I want an attorney present.’ Immediately thereafter, he asked ‘how soon can that be arranged? Today?’ The second time Conner requested counsel he said, ‘Yes, I, I would like one,’ referring to an attorney. The third time Conner requested counsel he said, ‘I want to consult with a lawyer and talk to the lawyer, ok? You know. And then, man, it’s not going to take that long for me to call ya’ll.’ There is nothing equivocal or ambiguous about this third request. Thus, we do not have to assess on our de novo review whether the first two requests were ambiguous, as the trial court concluded, or clear. See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703, 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (cases should be decided on narrowest possible ground). Conner’s request was similar to the defendant’s unequivocal request in Edwards, where the defendant said he wanted an attorney before making a deal. See id., 451 U.S. at 479. In contrast, Conner’s requests differ significantly from Davis, where a defendant who continued to answer questions after saying, ‘“[m]aybe I should talk to a lawyer,”’ was found not to have made an unequivocal request for counsel. See id., 512 U.S. at 455, 462 (emphasis added). It also differs from Ward, where a defendant who asked whether she should have a lawyer during questioning was found not to have made an unequivocal request for counsel. See id., 318 Wis. 2d 301, ¶¶29, 43.”
Reversed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Conen, J., Curley, J.
Attorneys: For Appellant: Haskell, Dustin C., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Kassel, Jeffrey J., Madison; Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee