Under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 435, appellant’s rights were violated where appellant said he did not want to talk to officers, but officers persisted in questioning him about his motivations for remaining silent. The officers’ questions were designed to elicit an incriminating response after appellant had already invoked his right to remain silent. An interrogator never needs to know why a suspect wishes to remain silent; once the suspect’s rights have been invoked, all questioning should cease. However, reversal was required only on the conviction for resisting arrest. Since Peracchi’s admission relating to possession of the handgun was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, that conviction was affirmed.