Dickson, C.J.
Facing charges of Murder and Assisting Suicide, the defendant filed a motion to suppress incriminating statements he made to a police detective in response to police inquiries, notwithstanding the defendant’s prior request for counsel. The trial court denied his motion, and the defendant initiated this interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Hartman v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 2012). We grant transfer and reverse.
….
Here, despite the defendant’s request for counsel, he had not been provided the opportunity to consult with an attorney prior to the police approaching him to read the search warrants. Nor had he consulted with family members or friends, nor been released from custody. Further, there is nothing in the record showing his knowledge from his earlier experience that a demand for counsel would bring dealings with the police to a halt. In fact, the defendant’s experience two days earlier, when his request for counsel was unproductive, could well have led him to the opposite conclusion—that a request for counsel would not be honored prior to further police dealings. This has the likely effect of increasing coercive pressure on the defendant.
….
The totality of the circumstances involving the content, place, and timing of the communication by the police with the defendant, combined with the detective’s immediate follow-up inquiry asking the defendant if he had any questions—all notwithstanding the defendant’s prior invocation of his right to counsel—constituted impermissible questioning or its functional equivalent in contravention of the requirements established by Miranda, Edwards, and Innis. The impingement upon the defendant’s right to counsel requires suppression of the defendant’s resulting statements. We reverse the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Rucker, David, Massa, and Rush, JJ., concur.