Appellant Gregory Wheeler was arrested and charged with aggravated sexual battery, cruelty to children, and four counts of child molestation. After the arrest, two police officers interviewed Wheeler, asking him if he was ready to talk. He replied, “Well, I mean I will to a certain extent, but I, you know, I can’t incriminate myself or anything. I mean not until I talk to an attorney, you know, first.” One officer then stated that she was going to read Wheeler his Miranda rights, and he responded, “You know, I —I’m —I’m not trying to be hard to get along with —but the seriousness of my charges —and everything, I need to discuss it with a lawyer before I, you know, talk to you. I —I’m not really trying to be hard to get along with.” When the officer then asked Wheeler if he was going to talk to the officers or not, Wheeler stated, “You can ask me some questions, and if I feel like I can answer them, I will, and if I feel I can’t, then I won’t.” After being informed of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694 1966, Wheeler waived those rights and affirmed his understanding that if he wanted an attorney, he did not have to make any statement. Wheeler confirmed that he was ready to talk to the officers and stated, “Like I said, you know, if there is any kind of questions that’s going to incriminate me, you know, I’ll have to exercise my rights. And I’m not trying to be hard to get along with.” After discussing the victim’s behavior with him and making some incriminating statements, Wheeler denied ever touching her and ended the interview.
The trial court admitted the tape of that custodial interrogation at trial, and Wheeler was convicted of all charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Wheeler’s contention that the interview was improperly admitted into evidence because the officers failed to cease the interrogation after he invoked his right to counsel. Wheeler v. State , 305 Ga. App. 501, 502-503 2 699 SE2d 745 2010. The Court of Appeals analyzed Wheeler’s claim as follows: Wheeler did not unambiguously request counsel. Rather, his references to counsel were equivocal and conditional, telling the officers that he would talk to them without an attorney, but only so long as he felt he could answer questions without incriminating himself. Cit. “Under these circumstances, the interrogating officers reasonably attempted to clarify Wheeler’s request. . . .” Cit. Moreover, after the officers fully informed Wheeler of his right to an attorney, he knowingly waived that right and gave his statement. Wheeler v. State , supra at 503 2. We granted certiorari to consider this holding.
