## Facts

- Samuel Moses Nelson, age 15, committed a series of residential burglaries, including a burglary of his 72-year-old neighbor Jane Thompson’s home, after which Thompson was found dead.
- Sheriff’s investigators questioned Nelson at the station after advising him of his Miranda rights.
- Nelson validly waived his Miranda rights at the outset of the interrogation.
- The interrogation lasted nearly five hours.
- During questioning, Nelson asked to call his mother to inform her what was happening and to seek advice about whether to take a polygraph.
- Nelson did not reach his mother, but he spoke with his grandmother and brother, who advised him not to take the test and not to do anything until his mother or a lawyer arrived.
- After the call, Nelson continued speaking with investigators and did not request an attorney or state he wanted questioning to stop.
- Investigators pressed Nelson to write down what happened; Nelson provided a written statement admitting he struck Thompson in the head with a hammer when she began to wake during the burglary.
- Nelson was charged as an adult with multiple counts of first-degree burglary and with murder arising from Thompson’s killing during the burglary.

## Issues

1. Whether a juvenile who has waived Miranda rights invokes the right to counsel or the right to remain silent post-waiver by repeatedly requesting to speak with his mother or by other equivocal remarks.
2. Whether the Davis “clear statement” standard for post-waiver invocation applies to juveniles.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that juveniles are subject to the Davis standard for post-waiver invocation of Miranda rights.
- The court concluded Nelson’s requests to speak to his mother and his other remarks were not unambiguous invocations of either the right to counsel or the right to remain silent.
- Because there was no clear post-waiver invocation, officers were not required to stop questioning or ask clarifying questions.
- Nelson’s statements, including his written confession, were properly admitted.
- The court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.

## Legal Principles

- After a valid Miranda waiver, a suspect’s later invocation of the right to counsel must be stated sufficiently clearly that a reasonable officer would understand it as a request for an attorney.
- The same “clear statement” requirement applies to a post-waiver invocation of the right to remain silent.
- The Davis objective standard governs post-waiver invocations by juveniles as well as adults; ambiguity or equivocation does not require cessation of interrogation.
- Requests to speak with a parent, without a clear request for counsel or a clear statement that questioning must stop, do not constitute a Miranda invocation.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that once a juvenile has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived Miranda rights, any later attempt to invoke the right to counsel or to remain silent must be unambiguous under the same objective standard applied to adults; Nelson’s requests to call his mother did not meet that standard, so his confession was admissible and his convictions were reinstated.


People v. Nelson, 266 P.3d 1008 (Cal. 2012)