Supreme Court of Louisiana. Re: State of Louisiana v. Warren Demesme 2017-KK-954 Decided: October 31, 2017

JUSTICES GREG G. GUIDRY First District SCOTT J. CRICHTON Second District JAMES T. GENOVESE Third District MARCUS R. CLARK Fourth District JEFFERSON D. HUGHES III Fifth District JOHN L. WEIMER Sixth District

Deaf Counsel:

Enclosed please find a copy of a corrected concurrence issued by Justice Crichton in the above-captioned matter. The original concurrence mistakenly reflects the docket number as 2017-K-954. Please note that the amended concurrence correctly reflects the docket number as 2017-KK-954. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

With kindest regards, I remain,

Very truly yours,

Katie Rittiner Marjanovic

Second Deputy Clerk

CORRECTED

OCTOBER 31, 2017

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2017-KK-0954

OCTOBER 27, 2017

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

WARREN DEMESME

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons:

I agree with the Court's decision to deny the defendant's writ application and write separately to spotlight the very important constitutional issue regarding the invocation of counsel during a law enforcement interview. The defendant voluntarily agreed to be interviewed twice regarding his alleged sexual misconduct with minors. At both interviews detectives advised the defendant of his Miranda rights and the defendant stated he understood and waived those rights. Nonetheless, the defendant argues he invoked his right to counsel. And the basis for this comes from the second interview, where I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer—prefacing that statement with “if y'all, this is how I feel, if y'all think I did it, I know that I didn't do it so why don't you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what's up.”

As this Court has written, “[i]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his right to counsel, the cessation of questioning is not required.” State v. Payne, 2001-3196, p. 10 (La. 12/4/02), 833 So.2d 927, 935 (citations omitted and emphasis in original); see also Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 462, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 2357, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) (agreeing with the lower courts' conclusion that the statement “[m]aybe I should talk to a lawyer” is not an unambiguous request for a lawyer). In my view, the defendant's ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview and does not violate Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).

Supreme Court

STATE OF LOUISIANA

New Orleans

CHIEF JUSTICE BERNETTE J. JOHNSON Seventh District

JUSTICES GREG G. GUIDRY First District SCOTT J. CRICHTON Second District JAMES T. GENOVESE Third District MARCUS R. CLARK Fourth District JEFFERSON D. HUGHES III Fifth District JOHN L. WEIMER Sixth District

October 31, 2017

JOHN TARLTON OLIVIER

CLERK OF COURT

400-Royal St., Suite 4200

NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130-8102

TELEPHONE (504) 310-2300

HOMEPAGE http://www.lasc.org

Re: State Ex Rel. Carlos Lampley

vs.

State of Louisiana

2017-CI-1678

Dear Counsel:

Enclosed please find a copy of a corrected Per Curiam issued by this Court in the above-captioned matter. The original Per Curiam mistakenly reflects the docket number as 2017-KH-1678. Please note that the amended Per Curiam correctly reflects the docket number as 2017-CI-1678. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

With kindest regards, I remain,

Very truly yours,

Katie Rittiner Marjanovic

Second Deputy Clerk'

cc: All counsel.

CORRECTED

OCTOBER 31, 2017

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 17-CI-1678

STATE EX REL. CARLOS LAMPLEY

OCTOBER 27, 2017

v.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON SUPERVISORY WRITS

PER CURIAM:

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).

CHIEF JUSTICE BERNETTE J. JOHNSON Seventh District