Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A10-507

Dodge County

Anderson, G. Barry, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Page and Anderson, Paul H., JJ.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Danny Ortega, Jr., Appellant. ________________________ Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Kelly O`Neill Moller, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Paul Kiltinen, Dodge County Attorney, Mantorville, Minnesota, for respondent. David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rochelle R. Winn, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota, for appellant. ________________________ SYLLABUS 1. An invocation of the right to remain silent is ambiguous if the suspect`s Filed: June 1, 2011 Office of Appellate Courts

statement could be interpreted as either a general refusal to answer any questions or as an expression of unwillingness to discuss a specific topic.

1

2.

The district court did not err when it denied appellant`s motion to suppress

statements made to law enforcement officials because appellant did not unambiguously invoke his right to silence. 3. When a suspect makes an equivocal invocation of the right to counsel,

providing the suspect with a Miranda warning is sufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the stop and clarify rule. 4. The district court did not err when it denied appellant`s motion to suppress

statements made to law enforcement officials because the agents properly clarified appellant`s ambiguous request for counsel. Affirmed. OPINION ANDERSON, G. Barry, Justice. Appellant Danny Ortega Jr., following a jury trial, was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder, Minn. Stat.

Download A10-507, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Danny Ortega, Jr., Appellant..pdf

Minnesota Law