Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals panel questions custody and interpreter issues in State v. Royce Schaffer
Summary
Oral argument focused on whether Schaffer was in Miranda custody when he invoked counsel and whether the district court failed to satisfy a statutory duty to provide a qualified ASL interpreter; counsel disputed whether the record preserves the ASL claim and whether the invocation was sufficiently unambiguous.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State of Utah v. Royce Schaffer on whether statements obtained during execution of a DNA warrant should have been excluded because Schaffer was in Miranda custody and invoked the right to counsel. Defense counsel Douglas Thompson urged reversal, arguing that handcuffing, transport to the station and the DNA draw created custody and that Schaffer immediately said, "I think I will need a lawyer," after being read Miranda rights.
"I think if the court reverses on that basis, the other ones can be addressed on remand," Thompson told the panel, explaining he sought a prompt remedy on Miranda grounds. He emphasized the sequence of events — officers arriving at Schaffer's home, cuffing and transporting him, taking a blood/DNA sample while restraints were modified but not fully removed — as indicia of custody under the reasonable‑person test.
The State's counsel disputed that custody continued at the precise moment of invocation and argued the record shows ambiguous phrasing and later conduct inconsistent with an immediate invocation that required termination of questioning. The panel repeatedly returned to timing: whether custody had ended when the DNA draw concluded and whether Schaffer's later engagement with Detective Champagne reflected a waiver or an ambiguous request.
Separately, Thompson advanced a statutory argument under the interpreter law (citing the statutory preference for an interpreter), contending the district court had a duty to appoint a qualified ASL interpreter when the presence of a deaf or hard‑of‑hearing party was brought to the court's attention. He argued that CART (real‑time transcription) is not equivalent to ASL interpretation for many deaf litigants and that the statute's text required appointment of a qualified interpreter unless the judge determined an alternative would suffice.
The State responded that the record contains no preserved request for ASL interpretation, that Schaffer and his counsel accepted CART at the pretrial hearing and that appellate review is governed by preservation and plain‑error principles. As with the Miranda issue, the panel acknowledged factual evidence (including a 30‑minute video of the encounter) but asked whether the legal standard for custody and unambiguous invocation was met.
After extended questioning of both sides on custody timing, invocation clarity and preservation of the interpreter issue, the panel took the matter under advisement and will issue a written opinion.
