Ensslin v. State

Summary

The court held that investigators violated Ensslin's constitutional right to remain silent by continuing to question him after he unequivocally invoked that right. It nevertheless affirmed because the erroneously admitted statements were cumulative of Ensslin's trial testimony and the properly admitted evidence of guilt was overwhelming, making the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also independently concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.