Motion to suppress; Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; Const 1963, art 1, § 17; Miranda rights; Miranda v Arizona; Right to remain silent; Unequivocal invocation; People v Henry (After Remand); Berghuis v Thompkins; Davis v United States; Sufficiency of the evidence; First-degree premeditated murder; Premeditation & deliberation; People v Oros; People v Smith; Flight evidence; Consciousness of guilt; People v Unger

The court held that defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent during his custodial interview and that sufficient evidence supported his first-degree murder conviction. Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, AWIM, and felony-firearm after a shooting in his home killed one victim and wounded another. The trial court denied his motion to suppress statements he made after Miranda warnings. On appeal, the court first held that defendant’s statement, “I think this might be a good place to stop, though,” was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent. The court agreed with the trial court that the statement was “grammatically equivocal and manifestly ambiguous,” and reasoned a reasonable officer could understand defendant to be “merely musing” about whether to stop the interview. The court next held that premeditation and deliberation were supported by evidence that defendant suspected the victims were plotting to rob him, forced the surviving victim into a bathroom, shot her when she refused to get into the bathtub, and then shot the deceased victim in the back of the head as he appeared to be leaving. Defendant’s flight to another state and disposal of the firearm also supported “consciousness of guilt.” Affirmed.