What constitutes an unequivocal and unambiguous invocation of his right under Miranda?

the course of a custodial interrogation after watching a video of a shooting was an unequivocal and unambiguous invocation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (Miranda ) and its progeny. In reaching this conclusion, we apply a standard of whether a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances known to the officer or that would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, including the juvenile's age, would understand the statement by the juvenile to be a request for an attorney. We conclude that a reasonable officer would have understood the juvenile's statement in this case to be a request for an attorney.

The juvenile court should have granted the motion to suppress the statements subsequently

[183 Cal.Rptr.3d 787]

elicited by police. Because the Miranda error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (Chapman ), we reverse and remand for further proceedings.