Smith v. Boughton

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his armed robbery conviction, even though defendant argued that police violated his 5th Amendment rights by extracting confession from him after he informed police that he wanted to cut off his interrogation. Record showed that after police gave defendant Miranda warnings and after defendant had agreed to speak to police without attorney, police initially asked defendant about his presence in stolen van. At some point in interrogation, officer asked defendant about defendant’s participation in robbery, and defendant stated that: “I don’t want to talk about this,” and that “I’m talking about this van.” Defendant argued in his direct appeal that all interrogation should have stopped at this juncture instead of police eventually extracting confession about robbery. Wisconsin Supreme Court, though, could properly find that defendant’s confession was admissible, where defendant’s statements, when taken in context of his interrogation, was ambiguous as to whether he had invoked his Miranda rights and wished to end all further questioning. (Dissent filed.)