[W]e find that James did not unequivocally and unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent when he stated: “Sir, I’m done talking about it, okay?”
State v. James
Fourth District Appellate Court
Washington County, Ohio
May 5, 2026
Why is this case important?
State v. James reinforces that courts will not suppress statements simply because a suspect uses words suggesting reluctance to talk. The question is whether a reasonable officer would understand the suspect to be clearly ending all questioning.
Background
On March 27, 2024, a Washington County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Rodney James on 14 criminal counts, including four counts of rape in violation of O.R.C. §2907.02(A)(1)(c) and (B), and (A)(1)(b), first-degree felonies; four counts of sexual battery in violation of O.R.C. §2907.03(A)(5) and (B), third-degree felonies; four counts of gross-sexual imposition in violation of O.R.C. §2907.05(A)(5) and (C), fourth degree felonies; one count of having a weapon while under a disability in violation of O.R.C. §2923.13(A)(4) and (B), a third-degree felony; and one count of intimidation of an attorney, victim, or witness in violation of O.R.C. §2921.04(A) and (D), a first-degree misdemeanor. James pleaded not guilty to all the charged offenses.
On July 10, 2024, James filed a motion to suppress statements that he made to law enforcement officers. James asserted that after he was arrested and read his Miranda rights, he repeatedly informed the arresting officer that he did not wish to answer any questions. Despite this, the officer proceeded to question him, resulting in some incriminating responses. James moved to have his responses suppressed.
On July 25, 2024, the State filed a motion in opposition. The State claimed that James never unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent.
Motion to Suppress
On August 9, 2024, the court held a suppression hearing. The prosecutor called Sergeant Robert McKee (“McKee”) from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office as the sole witness. McKee testified that he investigated James for sex offenses and spoke with him on two different occasions. The first interview addressed the sex offense charges. The second occurred after James returned to the Sheriff’s Office to retrieve his cell phone. The audio of this encounter was captured on a recording device and was played for the court:
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Today’s date is February 7, 2024. The current time is 2:34 in the afternoon.” [Sergeant McKee and Detective Schwendeman thanked Rodney James for meeting with them at Fourth Street.]
Was this Statement an Invocation of Legal Counsel or a Statement to Bounce?
JAMES: “Can I go, please? I don’t want to talk. I just want to get my things and go home, please.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Okay. You are under arrest, okay?”
JAMES: “Okay.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Do you have anything on you, in your pockets, anything that’s going to poke us or get stabbed— anything illegal, anything like that?”
JAMES: “No.”
Miranda Warning
SERGEANT MCKEE: “All right. So Mr. James, you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in Court. You do have the right to an attorney, and to have him appointed if you cannot afford one. If you decide to answer questions, you can stop answering at any time. Do you understand those rights?”
JAMES: “I do.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “So what has happened is—”
JAMES: “I’m listening.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “I don’t know if you realize but, what happened, stuff gets saved in a cloud. Even if you delete it. At times. So the images of the penis that you sent to your daughter— we have it.”
JAMES: “Uh-huh.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “All right. And you had told me that you did not send those—nude images of yourself.”
JAMES: “Okay.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “All right.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “So that’s what I want to talk to you about. I mean, you told me you didn’t want to talk?”
My Wife Said I Would Not be Arrested
JAMES: “Yes, sir. Right now, I’ve got people that are depending on me, and I already spoke to my wife about this, we’ve already spoke about this stuff. And we were dealing with this. I asked her if I was going to be arrested when I come up here and she told me no.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Well, we didn’t tell her that you were going to be, okay?”
JAMES: “Okay.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Yeah, we’re not—so I wanted to talk with her.”
JAMES: “Okay. We already spoke about this. We—”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “You want to explain it?”
JAMES: “—we are moving forward.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Do you want to explain why you did that?”
JAMES: “No. No, sir, I don’t. ’Cause I’m working with a counselor right now, sir. And I’m having issues.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “And that’s what I’m trying to understand it.”
JAMES: “Okay. I’ve got major issues, sir. I’ve got a lot of problems. I’ve had a lot of problems, went through a lot of trauma.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “How long has that been going on?”
JAMES: “Sir, what—”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “You sent the images to her.”
JAMES: “No, that only happened one time, sir.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Well, actually I’ve got two of them. So that’s a lie?”
JAMES: “One period of time, sir. One period of time. There was one period of time, and there was—there’s a part of my life that I’m no longer…”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “So the (inaudible)?”
Was this a Clear Statement to Remain Silent When Mr. James Kept Talking?
JAMES: “Sir, I don’t want to talk about it no more, okay?”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Well, you understand why we’re having this—”
JAMES: “Yes, sir, absolutely.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “—okay.”
JAMES: “But I’m…”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “So where did it begin to go to sex?”
Was this a Clear Statement to Remain Silent When Mr. James Kept Talking?
JAMES: “Sir, I’m done speaking about it, okay? Just…”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “But you—how come you didn’t get her the help she needs, but you won’t even take a—”
JAMES: “She, she—she crawled into the bed. She crawled— she climbed up on top of me.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Okay. Okay.”
JAMES: “—she climbed up on top of me.”
JAMES: “I woke up with her on top of me.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Okay. Were you inside of her?”
‘Huh’ is Called a Stalled Utterance
JAMES: “Huh?”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Were you inside of her?”
JAMES: “No—yes, sir, I was literally asleep.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “And your penis was inside of her?”
JAMES: “Yes, sir.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Okay.”
JAMES: “And I have—I don’t—I just can’t get an erection when I want one. (inaudible)”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “I understand. (inaudible) A woman at times—”
JAMES: “And my wife was at the beach. My wife left for the beach. She come into the room. I was asleep. She climbed up on top of me, and from then on, we didn’t know what to do, and… Sir, I’m sick to my stomach.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Did it happen more than once, or one time?”
JAMES: “Sir, it happened that one time for sure.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Okay. All right.”
JAMES: “And then after that, she [the victim] kept trying to test me and stuff, and I kept telling her, [the victim], this is wrong, we’ve got to stop. We can’t do this stuff, and she kept bringing up Joshua (phonetic)…”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “So—”
JAMES: “And it was just…”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Did you get off in her or on…?”
JAMES: “Sir, I don’t know. I don’t know, sir.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “All right. Okay. Well, okay, you are being arrested, and you are a (inaudible).”
JAMES: “Yes, sir.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Okay. So we’re going to walk out of here.” (inaudible)
Sgt. McKee Described the Arrest of Mr. James
After the audio was finished playing, the prosecutor asked Sgt. McKee if he would describe what occurred during this conversation.
Yes. As we went into the room, Mr. James walked into the room first. He turned and looked at me and began to speak with me saying that he wanted to go home, but I told him he was on – under arrest. While I was placing him in the cuffs, he would turn and look at me. He kept turning to address me, kept looking at me in the eye, and then once the handcuffs were on, and I read him his rights, he turned to look at me, and that’s when we began our conversation.
Closing Arguments
After both the prosecutor and James’ counsel questioned Sgt. McKee, each offered a closing argument. The prosecutor argued that James never unequivocally or unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent, which permitted questioning by the officers. In contrast, defense counsel asserted that James clearly invoked his right to remain silent. The court took the motion under advisement.
Motion to Suppress is Denied
On August 16, 2024, the court issued an entry denying James’ motion to suppress the statements that he made during McKee’s questioning.
Mr. James Accepts a Plea
Court Sentences Him to Eight Years in Prison
On October 16, 2024, the court held a change-of-plea hearing. James changed his plea from not guilty to no contest on two of the criminal counts named in the indictment, sexual battery and having a weapon under a disability. After the court reviewed the predicate requirements for accepting a plea (e.g., the constitutional rights the defendant is giving up by agreeing to a plea, the maximum penalty that could be imposed, etc.), the prosecutor read the facts of the case. The court then accepted James’ no contest plea and based on the facts found him guilty of both counts. The court proceeded to sentencing and imposed an aggregate eight-year prison term. It is the trial court’s October 21, 2024, judgment entry of conviction that James appeals to this court.
Appeal – Did Mr. James Make a Clear Statement he Did Not Want to Talk?
James maintains that the trial court erred when it failed to grant his motion to suppress statements that he made to McKee and the Sheriff’s Office on February 7, 2024. James asserts that he unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent to Det. McKee after being arrested on February 7, 2024, but Det. McKee continued to ask him questions. James claims he invoked his right to remain silent several times during the interview, in particular when he stated:
(1) “I don’t want to talk. I just want to get my things, and go home please”
(2) “Yes, sir” in response to McKee’s statement: “So, that’s what I want to talk to you about, I mean, you told me you didn’t want to talk”
(3) “Sir, I don’t want to talk about it no more, okay” and
(4) “Sir, I’m done speaking about it, okay.”
However, Det. McKee continued to question him and some of James’ responses contained incriminating information. James claims that this questioning violated his constitutional right to remain silent. Therefore, James seeks reversal of his conviction for sexual battery.
[T]he State argues that this statement did not constitute an unambiguous invocation of his right to remain silent.
In response, the State maintains that James’ initial statement about wanting to retrieve his property and go home was made before he received his Miranda rights. Additionally, according to State v. Murphy, 2001-Ohio-112, 91 Ohio St. 3d 516 (2001), the State argues that this statement did not constitute an unambiguous invocation of his right to remain silent due to the context and the lack of clarity regarding whether he did not want to talk at all, or simply wanted to leave.
[T]his was not an unambiguous invoking of his right to remain silent.
After Sgt. McKee arrested James and read him his Miranda rights, James confirmed his understanding of those rights, and the State maintained that James wanted to talk. Sgt. McKee then stated: “you told me that you didn’t want to talk,” and James said “Yes sir,” and then, according to the State, James started talking without being asked any questions; James’ “voluntary statements were made in an effort to affirm his innocence or prevent his arrest.” Thus, this was not an unambiguous invoking of his right to remain silent.
The State asserts that a person indicating that he or she does not want to “explain something” is not an invocation of the person’s right to remain silent.
The State claims that after James had shown a “desire to want to talk to the detectives by sharing information,” Sgt. McKee asked James if he wanted to explain his behavior and James stated: “ ‘No, sir I don’t.’ ” The State contends that James again volunteered to explain why he did not want to answer any more questions. The State asserts that a person indicating that he or she does not want to “explain something” is not an invocation of the person’s right to remain silent.
Mr. James “repeatedly evinced a willingness and a desire to talk further about the crime.”.
The State claims that when confronted with the knowledge that Sgt. McKee had incriminating photos, James began to “talk about a different period of time” and stated “Sir, I don’t want to talk about it no more, okay.” The State argues that Sgt. McKee asked “a clarifying question of whether or not he understands why he is asking this question.” The State contends that James indicated that he did, and both he and Sgt. McKee started talking over each other. James, then, stated “sir, I am done talking about it, okay, please.” The State maintains that James’ prior statements show that he “does have an interest in talking, but just not an interest in talking about ‘it.’ ” The State argues that “it is unclear what the ‘it’ is that [James] is referring to as there are multiple topics being discussed.” The State asserts that “[t]he full context of the interview shows that each time [James] stated that he did not want to talk about ‘it,’ [James] continued talking about something else.” The State claimed that James “repeatedly evinced a willingness and a desire to talk further about the crime.”.
Did Mr. James Invoke his Right to Remain Silent Only to Immediately Waive it?
The State maintains that James never invoked his right to remain silent and did not wish to do so because he did not perceive his statements as incriminating. Rather, he thought that he was defending himself. The State argues that if James had unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent by explicitly stating that he did not want to talk at all and had refrained from doing so, then Sgt. McKee’s “prompting” for James to talk would have been problematic. The State further asserts that the law allows a defendant to waive their right to remain silent by initiating a conversation with the police, even after initially invoking that right. Thus, in the event it is determined that James did invoke his right to remain silent, then the State argues that he “waived it quickly thereafter.”
Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
Established Case Law – Right to Remain Silent
In order to safeguard a suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, law enforcement officers seeking to perform a custodial interrogation must warn the suspect “that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” State v. Lawson, 2015-Ohio-4394, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.), quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966).
As with the right to counsel, the right to remain silent must be expressly invoked.
We note that in analyzing a defendant’s right to remain silent, courts apply the same standards applicable in analyzing a defendant’s right to counsel. See State v. Adams, 2015-Ohio-3945 (“As with the right to counsel, the right to remain silent must be expressly invoked.”). Therefore, we cite several such cases in support of our analysis.
Established Case Law – Right to Remain Silent
A defendant’s invocation of his or her right to remain silent can be express or implied. State v. Adkins, 2011-Ohio-5360, ¶ 15. “Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused’s uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent.” Id., citing Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 384 (2010). However, an express “ ‘[i]nvocation of the Miranda right to [remain silent] “requires, at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire [to cease all questioning].” ’ ” (Brackets original) State v. Woods, 2018-Ohio-4588, ¶ 54 (4th Dist.), quoting Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994), quoting McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 178 (1991). “ ‘If an accused makes a statement concerning the right to [remain silent] ‘that is ambiguous or equivocal’ or makes no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, or ask questions to clarify whether the accused wanted to invoke his or her Miranda rights.’ ” Lawson at ¶19, quoting Berghuis at 381, citing Davis at 461-462.
[I]n assessing whether a defendant has expressly invoked his or her right to remain silent, courts “must examine [an] appellant’s words not in isolation but in context.”
Statements like “I’m done talking” have been recognized as “a simple, unambiguous statement that the [defendant] did not want to talk to the police.” State v. Miller, 2014-Ohio-2936, ¶ 61 (7th Dist.). However, in assessing whether a defendant has expressly invoked his or her right to remain silent, courts “must examine [an] appellant’s words not in isolation but in context.” Murphy, 2001-Ohio-112, 91 Ohio St. 3d at 520 (2001). For example, In State v. White, during an interrogation by law enforcement, “[appellant] expressed that he ‘really don’t right now even want to answer any questions,’ and he expressed that he thought the stop of his vehicle and his transportation to the police station were unlawful.” 2018-Ohio-3076, ¶ 27 (2d Dist.). The issue before the court was whether the highlighted statement was an unambiguous invocation of his right to remain silent. The court found that:
[Appellant’s] comment about not wanting to answer questions was immediately followed by several statements complaining about how he was brought to the police station. Taken together, [Appellant] did not clearly or unambiguously state that he wanted the interview to cease; rather, he expressed to Detective Howard that he did not want to talk until he understood why he was there.
Thus, the court held that the detective properly continued questioning the appellant in White. Id.
[T]he defendant must articulate the desire to cut off questioning sufficiently clearly.
“ ‘If the suspect’s statement is not an unambiguous or unequivocal [invocation of the right to remain silent], the officers have no obligation to stop questioning him.’ ” Woods at ¶ 54, quoting Davis at 461. The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that the defendant must articulate the desire to cut off questioning sufficiently clearly so that a reasonable police officer under the circumstances would understand the statement to be an invocation of the right to remain silent. Murphy at 520.
Did Mr. James Indicate an ‘Unclear Intent’?
In Berghuis, the court explained:
There is good reason to require an accused who wants to invoke his or her right to remain silent to do so unambiguously. A requirement of an unambiguous invocation of Miranda rights results in an objective inquiry that ‘avoid[s] difficulties of proof and . . . provide[s] guidance to officers’ on how to proceed in the face of ambiguity. If an ambiguous act, omission, or statement could require police to end the interrogation, police would be required to make difficult decisions about an accused’s unclear intent and face the consequence of suppression ‘if they guess wrong.’ Suppression of a voluntary confession in these circumstances would place a significant burden on society’s interest in prosecuting criminal activity. Treating an ambiguous or equivocal act, omission or statement as an invocation of Miranda rights ‘might add marginally to Miranda’s goal of dispelling the compulsion inherent in custodial interrogation.’ But ‘as Miranda holds, full comprehension of the rights to remain silent and request an attorney are sufficient to dispel whatever coercion is inherent in the interrogation process.’ ” (Citations omitted; ellipses and brackets original) Berghuis, 560 U.S. at 381-382.
Mr. James’ Appeal is Clearer than was His Request to Remain Silent
James does not claim that the State failed to administer his Miranda rights, that he misunderstood them, or that his confession was coerced. Instead, the dispute is whether James unambiguously and unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent during Sgt. McKee’s interrogation. James asserts that he unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent on four separate occasions during Sgt. McKee’s interrogation.
Like Dorothy, Mr. James Just Wanted to Go Home
The first statement identified by James as invoking his right to remain silent was “I don’t want to talk. I just want to get my things, and go home, please.” This statement was made before James was arrested. Consequently, at that time, he had no Miranda rights to waive. It was only after this statement that Sgt. McKee arrested James, read him his Miranda rights, and began questioning him.
Furthermore, in State v. Murphy, the Supreme Court considered whether the statement – “I’m ready to quit talking now and I’m ready to go home, too.” – was an invocation of the appellant’s right to remain silent. 2001-Ohio-112, 91 Ohio St.3d at 519-522. The court held: The first part of his statement—“I’m ready to quit talking”— might well be read as an unambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent if examined in isolation. However, we must examine appellant’s words not in isolation but in context. His full statement was: “I’m ready to quit talking and I’m ready to go home, too.” (Emphasis added.) This statement can be interpreted as meaning simply that appellant was ready to “go home.” Id. at 520-521
Similar to Murphy James’ statement can be interpreted as meaning he simply wanted to go home, and it was made prior to being read his Miranda rights. Therefore, we find that James’ statement – “I don’t want to talk. I just want to get my things, and go home, please” – did not unambiguously and unequivocally invoke of his right to remain silent.
In assessing whether James invoked his right to remain silent by this statement, we must not examine those words in isolation but rather in conjunction with what was said immediately prior to James making this second statement and immediately after.
The second statement that James asserts invoked his right to remain silent was when he said “Yes, sir” which was in response to Sgt. McKee stating “So that’s what I want to talk to you about. I mean, you told me you didn’t want to talk?” In assessing whether James invoked his right to remain silent by this statement, we must not examine those words in isolation but rather in conjunction with what was said immediately prior to James making this second statement and immediately after. Thus, once James was arrested and read his Miranda rights, the following questioning occurred:
SERGEANT MCKEE: “So what has happened is—”
JAMES: “I’m listening.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “I don’t know if you realize but, what happened, stuff gets saved in a cloud. Even if you delete it. At times. So the images of the penis that you sent to your daughter—we have it.”
JAMES: “Uh-huh.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “All right. And you had told me that you did not send those—nude images of yourself.”
JAMES: “Okay.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “All right.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “So that’s what I want to talk to you about. I mean, you told me you didn’t want to talk?” (Emphasis added.)
JAMES: “Yes, sir. Right now, I’ve got people that are depending on me, and I already spoke to my wife about this, we’ve already spoke about this stuff. And we were dealing with this. I asked her if I was going to be arrested when I come up here and she told me no.” (Emphasis added.).
And from there the interrogation proceeded.
It is clear from the conversation between the appellant and the detectives that the appellant did not intend to invoke his right to remain silent.
First, we note that James did not directly state that he did not want to talk. Rather, he responded affirmatively to Sgt. McKee’s statement – “I mean you told me that you did not want to talk?” In State v. Williams, the court of appeals found that a detective’s question to appellant regarding whether appellant wanted to stop the interrogation was a clarifying inquiry to appellant. Such an inquiry is proper and not an encroachment on the right to remain silent, “[a]s long as the clarification questions are not used as a means of coercing the accused into giving a statement.” State v. Whitsell (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 512, 528. Rather than invoking his right to remain silent the appellant continued his conversation with the detectives. It is clear from the conversation between the appellant and the detectives that the appellant did not intend to invoke his right to remain silent.
Court Concludes Mr. James was Unclear
Similar to Williams, McKee asked a “clarification” question of James, and even after he responded affirmatively to Sgt. McKee’s question about not wanting to talk, James continued to talk about the case. Therefore, we find that James’ response of “yes, sir” to Sgt. McKee’s question did not unambiguously and unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent.
The third statement that James asserts invoked his right to remain silent was “Sir, I don’t want to talk about it no more, okay?” Prior to this statement, the exchange occurred:
SERGEANT MCKEE: “You sent the [naked] images to her.”
JAMES: “No, that only happened one time, sir.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Well, actually I’ve got two of them. So that’s a lie?”
JAMES: “One period of time, sir. One period of time. There was one period of time, and there was—there’s a part of my life that I’m no longer…”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “So the (inaudible)?”
JAMES: “Sir, I don’t want to talk about it no more, okay?” (Emphasis added.)
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Well, you understand why we were having this –“
Mr. James continued to discuss the case after indicating he did not want to talk.
JAMES: ”Yes, sir absolutely.” . . . and the interrogation proceeded from there. In the context of this line of questioning, the “it” that James referred to seemed to be the images he sent to his daughter, rather than an intention to stop talking entirely. Moreover, James continued to discuss the case after indicating he did not want to talk. Therefore, we find that James’ statement – “Sir, I don’t want to talk about it no more, okay?” – did not unambiguously and unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent.
The fourth and final statement that James asserts invoked his right to remain silent was “Sir, I’m done speaking about it, okay?” As with his prior statements, context is important to our analysis. Prior to this statement, the following exchange occurred:
SERGEANT MCKEE: “So where did it begin to go to sex?”
JAMES: “Sir, I’m done speaking about it, okay? Just…”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “But you—how come you didn’t get her the help she needs, but you won’t even take a—”
JAMES: “She, she—she crawled into the bed. She crawled—she climbed up on top of me.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Okay. Okay.”
JAMES: “—she climbed up on top of me.”
JAMES: “I woke up with her on top of me.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Okay. Were you inside of her?”
JAMES: “Huh?”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “Were you inside of her?”
JAMES: “No—yes, sir, I was literally asleep.”
SERGEANT MCKEE: “And your penis was inside of her?”
JAMES: “Yes, sir.”
A Clinton-esque Analysis of the Word ‘It’
James’ indication that he wanted to stop talking about “it” appears to specifically refer to Sgt. McKee’s direct question about what led to sexual activity with his daughter, rather than a complete desire to end the conversation. Furthermore, even after James stated he was “done speaking about it,” he continued briefly by saying “just . . .” before Sgt. McKee interrupted him. Sgt. McKee’s interruption respected James’ request and shifted the conversation to why James did not get his daughter the help she may have needed. James then voluntarily began making incriminating statements, attempting to minimize his actions and shifting blame to his daughter. Thus, we find that James did not unequivocally and unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent when he stated: “Sir, I’m done talking about it, okay?”
Conclusion and Holding
Having found that none of the four statements that James identified were an unambiguous invocation of his right to remain silent, we find that the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress the statements he made during Sgt. McKee’s custodial interrogation. Therefore, we overrule James’ sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. James, 2026 – Ohio – 1734 and online news articles.
State v. James, 2026 – Ohio – 1734 was issued by the Fourth District Appellate Court on May 5, 2026 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Adams, Athens, Gallia, Highland, Hocking, Jackson, Lawrence, Meigs, Pickaway, Pike, Ross, Scioto, Vinton and Washington.
Lessons Learned
Does Law Enforcement Have a Legal Obligation to Ask Clarifying Questions? On October 2, 1988 the Naval Investigative Service interviewed killer Seaman Robert Davis. Following the Miranda warning, Seaman Davis asked ‘Maybe I should talk to a lawyer?’. The investigator did not acknowledge his question and kept on questioning Seaman Davis. Seaman Davis would eventually admit to the homicide – he killed fellow Seaman, Keith Shackleford with a pool que. Seaman Davis was convicted and appealed his question as a request for legal counsel. On June 24, 1994 the U.S. Supreme Court held “But we decline to adopt a rule requiring offices to ask clarifying questions. If the suspect’s statement is not unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel, the officers have no obligation to stop questioning him.”. Davis v. U.S., 512 U.S. 452 (1994). Keep in mind that the suspect must make a clear request for an attorney/lawyer. The suspect has no legal right to request to talk to a family member, co-conspirator, friend, parole officer, probation officer or anyone other than a lawyer.
Miranda Waiver – On June 1, 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court held “[A] suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police.”. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 388-389 (2010)
Implied Miranda Waiver – During Sgt. McKee’s interview, Mr. James said “Sir, I don’t want to talk about it no more, okay?”. Then Mr. James kept talking. When a suspect states they do not want to talk and then keeps talking was addressed on June 1, 2010 when the U.S. Supreme Court held “The Miranda rule and its requirements are met if a suspect receives adequate Miranda warnings, understands them, and has an opportunity to invoke the rights before giving any answers or admissions. Any waiver, express or implied, may be contradicted by an invocation at any time.” Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 387-388 (2010). When a suspect keeps talking following a statement that he does not want to talk is considered an Implied Miranda Waiver. The suspect is implying they are waiving their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Right or Ability? Comedian Ron White has famously quipped ‘I had the right to remain silent – I did not have the ability.’ Mr. James continued to talk to Sgt. McKee even after stating that he [James] did not want to talk.
Pre-Sent Arms! Sgt. Robert McKee and the Washington County Prosecutors Office should be highly commended for their investigation, arrest, interrogation, conviction and appeal defense of Mr. James. Well done!
Does your agency train on Investigative Detention?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!