☢ test - Í

New case! Cheley v. State, S16G0003, ___ Ga. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 2946385 (May 23, 2016). Murder and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his custodial statements. In each case, defendant either failed to unequivocally assert his right to remain silent, or re-initiated discussions with officers after having done so. 1. Defendant’s statement “I’m completely finished,” in context, didn’t mean he wanted to end the interrogation, but was in response to officer’s promise to reveal the subject of their interrogation after defendant “completely finish[ed]” explaining his conduct before visiting a gas station on the night of the murder. 2. Two weeks later, officers terminated defendant’s second statement when “Cheley said that he was ‘done talking’ and had ‘no more to say.’” At that point, “the record shows that the investigators then stopped asking questions about his case, they answered a number of questions that Cheley posed, and they allowed Cheley to leave the interrogation room to smoke a cigarette.” Cheley returned 30 minutes later and asked to continue the statement. Cheley then talked freely with the officers for some time, then asked for an attorney, whereupon questioning ceased. Thomas v. State, 334 Ga.App. 189, 778 S.E.2d 815 (October 19, 2015). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; trial court erred, but harmless, in admitting defendant’s custodial statement. “Thomas unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent when he told [Sergeant] Rogers that he ‘was not making a statement and that [the police] could just put him in jail.’” Thomas was then left “alone in the small interview room for more than three hours, during which time his feet were shackled to the floor, and he was not offered food, water, or the opportunity to use the restroom.” Investigator Kelly then entered the room and got Thomas to make a statement. “[T]his short time interval [between invocation of right to silence, and resumption of interrogation] weighs in favor of suppression. Secondly, there is no evidence that Thomas initiated the conversation with Kelly.” Harmless, however, in light of overwhelming evidence of defedant’s guilt. Lucas v. State, 331 Ga.App. 455, 771 S.E.2d 142 (March 23, 2015). Physical precedent only on this point. Convictions for attempted marijuana possession and attempted armed robbery affirmed; trial court properly admitted defendant’s custodial statement. Defendant’s alleged invocation of right to remain silent wasn’t “clear and unequivocal.” “During the interview, one of the detectives insisted Lucas knew about the marijuana, and Lucas responded, ‘If you want to say that, then say that. I don't want to hear no more. If you want to take me to jail, take me to jail.’ However, Lucas continued speaking to the detectives, denying his role even as one detective left the room, saying, ‘See you in court.’” Lucas continued to talk and ultimately confessed his role in the crimes. See also Weaver (February 7, 2011), below , and cases collected thereunder. Chavez-Ortega v. State, 331 Ga.App. 500, 771 S.E.2d 179 (March 24, 2015). Interlocutory appeal in DUI prosecution; trial court erred by denying motion to suppress custodial statements. Defendant clearly invoked his right to remain silent and end interrogation both before and after officers read Miranda warnings, but officers continued to question him. After defendant was detained in handcuffs and placed in patrol car, officer “questioned Chavez–Ortega about where he lived and how old he was. Chavez–Ortega quickly stated that he did not want to talk, and Officer Denson advised him of his Miranda rights. The video recording shows that at the conclusion of the Miranda warning, Chavez–Ortega can be heard to tell the officer ‘I don't want to talk to you.’” Officers continued to question defendant, and he ultimately made incriminating statements. “Instead of honoring Chavez–Ortega's right to remain silent, Officer Denson continued to question him. Accordingly, any responses by Chavez–Ortega after he stated his wished to remain silent should have been suppressed at trial. See Webb v. State, 284 Ga. 122, 125(3) (663 S.E.2d 690) (2008).” Mack v. State, 296 Ga. 239, 765 S.E.2d 896 (November 17, 2014). In murder prosecution, trial court erred by denying motion to suppress custodial statements; officer failed to cease interrogation despite defendant’s unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent, and officer’s resumption of interrogation the next morning was too close in time to the termination of the prior interrogation. 1. Defendant unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent when he told investigator, “I’m done. I have no more to say. I’m done. Let’s ride.” Investigators nevertheless continued the interview for some 30 more minutes despite defendant’s repeated statements that “I’m done. I ain’t got no more to say.” The next morning, 17 hours later, the investigator again interviewed defendant, who continued to deny committing the murders, but spoke to the investigator for less than two hours, including various breaks. “The final interview began roughly ten minutes later, wherein Mack, after being Mirandized one more time, admitted to [Investigator] Langford that he shot the victim and gave a brief description of the events leading up to the murder.” Defendant requested the final interview. “An accused will be found to have ‘unambiguously and unequivocally’ asserted his right to remain silent where he declares that he is finished talking or otherwise expresses the clear desire for police questioning to cease. See, e.g., State v. Moon, 285 Ga. 55, 57 (673 S.E.2d 255) (2009) (finding unequivocal assertion of the right to remain silent where defendant, after being questioned for some time, stated, ‘I ain't got no more to say. I mean, that is it.’); Green [ v. State, 275 Ga. 569, 572-573