Defendant Denied Motion to Suppress Statements Made by Police After Armed Robbery
The Fifth District held that the defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel before making incriminating statements during a recorded police interview.
In People v. McPike, 2023 IL App (5th) 220007, the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed an armed robbery conviction and a 23-year sentence after rejecting the defendant’s challenge to statements he made during a custodial interrogation.
Jered McPike was convicted of armed robbery after a gas station robbery in Jackson County, Illinois. He was sentenced to eight years in prison plus a 15-year firearm enhancement, for a total of 23 years, followed by 18 months of mandatory supervised release.
McPike argued that police continued questioning him after he had invoked his right to counsel and that his incriminating statements should therefore have been suppressed. He also argued that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to object when the jury viewed portions of the interrogation video.
Quick Answer
The Fifth District affirmed the conviction. The court concluded that McPike did not clearly and unequivocally invoke his right to counsel before making the statements at issue. When he later clearly invoked his right to remain silent by saying that he wanted to “plead the Fifth,” questioning stopped. The appellate court also rejected his ineffective-assistance claim because he failed to establish the prejudice required to obtain relief.
The Gas Station Armed Robbery
The case arose from the October 29, 2018 robbery of Omar’s Gas Station in Jackson County, Illinois. Two masked men entered the gas station carrying guns and ordered the people inside to get on the ground and hand over money.
One robber wore what witnesses described as an old-man Halloween mask, while the other wore a ski mask. The robbers took money and other property from the gas station before leaving.
Police later arrested McPike and his alleged codefendant. Investigators recovered a purple backpack near the scene containing cash, gas station receipts, clothing, masks, cigars or cigarettes, and two firearms. DNA recovered from the Halloween-style mask matched McPike.
Two Robbers
Witnesses reported that two masked men entered the gas station while armed.
Evidence Recovered
Police recovered a purple backpack containing cash, receipts, masks, clothing, and firearms near the scene.
DNA Evidence
DNA recovered from the Halloween mask matched McPike.
McPike’s Police Interrogation
Before questioning, detectives advised McPike of his Miranda rights. He signed a written form indicating that he understood those rights and was willing to speak with investigators.
The interrogation was recorded on video. During the interview, another officer told McPike that he and his codefendant were in a “race” to see who would talk first and encouraged him not to “burn” himself by remaining silent.
Detective Lee Stewart then asked McPike whether he had entered the gas station because he needed money for drugs or simply needed money to get by. McPike initially expressed hesitation and said that he wanted to talk but did not have a lawyer present.
McPike’s Reference to an Attorney
During the interrogation, McPike said he wanted to talk but did not have a lawyer present. He later asked whether it was possible to have a lawyer present. Detective Stewart responded that if McPike wanted a lawyer, that was fine, but stated that he could not get an attorney for him that day. McPike nevertheless continued speaking.
What McPike Said During the Interview
During the questioning, McPike made several statements that implicated him in the robbery. When Detective Stewart asked whether he needed the money for drugs or simply to get by, McPike eventually responded that he needed it to get by.
McPike also discussed the robbery as involving several people and described his intended role. He later acknowledged that he had done the robbery “for the bread.”
McPike eventually told detectives that he wanted to “plead the Fifth.” Detective Stewart immediately stopped the questioning after that statement.
Miranda Warning
McPike was advised of his rights and signed a written waiver before questioning began.
References to Counsel
McPike made several references to not having a lawyer and eventually asked whether he could have one present.
Clear Invocation of Silence
McPike eventually said he wanted to “plead the Fifth,” and the detective ended the interrogation.
The Motion to Suppress His Statements
Before trial, defense counsel filed a motion seeking to suppress McPike’s statements to police. The motion argued that questioning continued after McPike had invoked his right to consult an attorney.
The trial court reviewed the interrogation video and heard Detective Stewart’s testimony. The court concluded that McPike had not clearly and unequivocally invoked his right to counsel before making the incriminating statements.
The trial court also found that McPike’s statements were freely, knowingly, and voluntarily made and were not the result of coercion, undue influence, or improper promises. The motion to suppress was denied.
The Trial Court’s Finding
The trial court determined that McPike’s references to an attorney were not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to require the detectives to stop the interrogation. The court also found that the statements were voluntary.
When Must Police Stop Questioning?
The Fifth District relied on established United States Supreme Court precedent concerning a suspect’s right to counsel during a custodial interrogation.
Under Miranda v. Arizona, a person in custodial interrogation has the right to have counsel present. Under Edwards v. Arizona, once a suspect clearly invokes the right to counsel, police generally may not continue custodial interrogation unless counsel is made available or the suspect independently reinitiates communication.
But Davis v. United States established that a suspect’s request for counsel must be clear and unambiguous. An ambiguous or equivocal reference to an attorney does not necessarily require police to stop questioning.
Miranda
Requires warnings concerning constitutional rights before custodial interrogation in circumstances covered by the rule.
Edwards
Once a suspect clearly invokes the right to counsel, police generally must stop custodial interrogation until counsel is available or the suspect reinitiates communication.
Davis
An invocation of the right to counsel must be clear and unambiguous under an objective standard.
Why the Appellate Court Found No Clear Invocation
The Fifth District examined the exact language used during the interrogation. Before making the incriminating statements, McPike said that he wanted to talk but did not have a lawyer present. When Detective Stewart asked whether he needed a lawyer, McPike later asked, “Is it possible, if I could have a lawyer present?”
The appellate court considered the surrounding conversation and concluded that McPike’s statements were not an unequivocal invocation under the objective standard required by Davis.
The court also noted that, immediately after the detective’s response, McPike continued talking about his involvement in the robbery. Later, when McPike clearly stated that he wanted to “plead the Fifth,” the detective stopped the interrogation.
The Court’s Conclusion
The appellate court held that McPike did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel before making the incriminating statements at issue. As a result, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
The Jury Heard the Interrogation Video
During trial, defense counsel did not object when the State played portions of the interrogation video for the jury. The appellate record did not clearly establish whether the entire video or only portions were shown.
The video contained McPike’s references to counsel, his incriminating statements, and his eventual statement that he wanted to “plead the Fifth.”
McPike argued on appeal that his attorney should have objected to the jury hearing those portions of the interview and that counsel’s failure to object amounted to ineffective assistance.
The Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim
Under Strickland v. Washington, a defendant alleging ineffective assistance generally must establish both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance caused prejudice.
The Fifth District did not need to determine whether trial counsel’s failure to object constituted deficient performance because McPike failed to demonstrate prejudice.
The court noted that the State presented substantial independent evidence tying McPike to the robbery, including physical evidence and DNA evidence connecting him to the Halloween mask recovered after the robbery.
Physical Evidence
Police recovered items connected to the robbery near the scene, including cash, masks, clothing, and firearms.
DNA Evidence
DNA recovered from the Halloween-style mask matched McPike.
Statements
McPike made incriminating statements during the recorded interrogation.
Because this evidence independently supported the conviction, the appellate court concluded that McPike had not shown a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different without the challenged portions of the interview.
McPike’s 23-Year Sentence
A Jackson County jury found McPike guilty of armed robbery under 720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2).
The circuit court sentenced him to eight years in prison for armed robbery and added a mandatory 15-year firearm enhancement, resulting in a total sentence of 23 years. He was also sentenced to 18 months of mandatory supervised release.
YEARS
Total Sentence
Eight years for armed robbery plus a 15-year firearm enhancement resulted in a 23-year prison sentence.
What People v. McPike Means for Illinois Criminal Defense
People v. McPike, 2023 IL App (5th) 220007 demonstrates the importance of the precise language used when a suspect discusses an attorney during a police interrogation.
The decision also illustrates the distinction between a potentially improper admission of evidence and an ineffective-assistance claim. Even when defense counsel’s performance is challenged, the defendant still must establish the required prejudice to obtain relief.
The case should not be read as establishing that police may continue questioning indefinitely after a suspect clearly requests an attorney. Rather, the appellate court applied the federal standard requiring an objectively clear and unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel and concluded that McPike’s statements did not satisfy that standard before the incriminating statements were made.
Rule 23 Decision
People v. McPike, 2023 IL App (5th) 220007 was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).
Talk to a Decatur, IL Criminal Defense Lawyer Today
Statements made during a police interrogation can have a significant impact on a criminal case. Questions involving Miranda warnings, the right to counsel, invocation of constitutional rights, suppression motions, and ineffective assistance of counsel can require a detailed review of the interrogation and the entire evidentiary record.
Patel Law, PC represents criminal defendants facing serious charges, including armed robbery and firearm offenses. Our Decatur criminal defense lawyers can review the circumstances of an interrogation and explain the legal options that may be available.
Contact Patel Law, PC to schedule a consultation regarding your Illinois criminal case.
Call Patel Law, PC
Learn More About Patel Law, PC
Sources
People v. McPike, 2023 IL App (5th) 220007 — Illinois Appellate Court Opinion
720 ILCS 5/18-2 — Armed Robbery
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452
