Bradford, J.
In March of 2017, Joshua Risinger’s trailer was set on fire and burned, killing Jeffrey Charles Givan. … In November of 2018, a jury trial was held, after which a jury found Risinger guilty but mentally ill of murder and felony murder and guilty of arson. The trial court merged the felony murder and arson convictions with the murder conviction and sentenced Risinger to sixty years of incarceration. Risinger contends, inter alia, that the trial court erroneously admitted the statements he made during the three police interviews because (1) they were made involuntarily and (2) they were made after detectives failed to scrupulously honor his invocation of his Miranda rights. Because we agree that the detectives failed to scrupulously honor Risinger’s right to remain silent pursuant to Miranda, we reverse.
… As he was leaving the scene of the fire, Risinger was arrested and taken to the Washington County Sheriff’s Department. Once at the Sheriff’s Department, Indiana State Police Detectives Matt Busick and Brian Busick and Salem Police Officer Ronnie May took Risinger into a deputy’s office for an interview…. Detective Brian Busick read Risinger his Miranda rights, and Risinger stated that he understood them. Risinger also signed a form acknowledging that he had read and understood his Miranda rights, and his signature contained a “7-5” which Risinger explained was always included in his signature. … Approximately nineteen minutes into the interview, Risinger told the detectives “I’m done talking.” Detectives Matt and Brian Busick, however, continued questioning Risinger. … Multiple times throughout the portion of the interview where Risinger made incriminating statements, he again stated that he was done talking, but the detectives continued asking questions until they concluded the interview.
On March 15, 2017, at approximately 11:00 a.m. and 6:15 p.m., Detective Matt Busick conducted a second and third interview with Risinger. During the interviews, Risinger made further incriminating statements. The interviews lasted approximately twelve and thirty minutes, respectively, and were ceased by Detective Busick once Risinger told Detective Busick that he was done talking.
… Pursuant to the United State Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, a person who is subjected to a custodial interrogation must first be warned 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[,]” should he so desire. 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). Statements made to police by a person in police custody in response to police interrogation are inadmissible at trial, unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they were preceded by a knowing and voluntary waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination and were themselves voluntarily given. Johnson v. State, 584 N.E.2d 1092, 1098–99 (Ind. 1992). …
….
We conclude that Risinger’s waivers of his Miranda rights were voluntary. Before each interview Detective Busick read Risinger’s Miranda rights to him. Risinger acknowledged verbally or through a thumbs up that he understood those rights and was willing to talk to Detective Busick. Risinger also read and signed a form acknowledging and waiving his rights.
We also conclude that Risinger’s statements to the detectives were voluntary. … Given the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Risinger made his waivers and statements voluntarily.
Risinger contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the majority of the statements he made during police interviews because they were obtained in violation of his right to remain silent pursuant to Miranda. Specifically, Risinger contends that his rights were violated when the detectives continued to question him after he had stated “I’m done talking.”
….
Here, Risinger unequivocally invoked his Miranda rights by stating “I’m done talking.” Under these circumstances, we conclude that “I’m done talking” was Risinger’s expressed desire to remain silent. While Risinger could have been clearer in expressing his desire by stating something such as “I’m invoking my right to remain silent,” such a formal declaration is not what the law requires. … Thus, we conclude that the statements made by Risinger during the first interview should not have been admitted at trial, with the exception of those made prior to Risinger’s invocation of his Miranda rights approximately nineteen minutes into the interview.
Regarding the second and third interviews, we also conclude that these interviews should not have been admitted at trial. While it is true that they were conducted the following day and Risinger was Mirandized again, this amounted to nothing more than shutting the barn doors long after the cows had bolted. … These subsequent interviews clearly built upon the confession which was unconstitutionally obtained by detectives after they failed to scrupulously honor Risinger’s invocation of his right to remain silent during the first interview.
….
We conclude that Risinger’s waivers of his Miranda rights and statements were voluntary. His statement, however, “I’m done talking,” was an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent pursuant to Miranda, and the detectives’ continuation of questioning thereafter was a failure to scrupulously honor that right. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting at trial the statements made by Risinger during the first interview after he had asserted his Miranda rights (at approximately minute nineteen), and the statements he made during the second and third interviews.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.