In re the Personal Restraint of Cross, 180 Wash. 2d 664

In 1999 Dayva Cross killed his wife and two stepdaughters; arrested same day and initially pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, later entered an Alford plea to aggravated first-degree murder.
A jury sentenced Cross to death after a penalty-phase hearing; this Court affirmed on direct appeal and Cross filed a timely personal restraint petition (PRP).
Cross contended (inter alia) that his custodial statements to officers violated Miranda, that counsel rendered ineffective assistance under Strickland, that cumulative errors denied due process, and that Washington’s death-penalty scheme and lethal-injection protocol are unconstitutional.
The court reviewed whether statements to Officers Silcox and Soule were admitted in violation of the Fifth Amendment, found the Miranda invocation was unequivocal, found interrogation by officers occurred, but ruled any Miranda error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Statements to Detective Doyon were conceded by defense and not reconsidered.
The court rejected Cross’s cumulative-error and federal/state constitutional challenges, and denied all ineffective-assistance claims because performance was within reasonable professional bounds or showed no prejudice under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of custodial statements to Silcox/Soule (Miranda)	Cross argued he unequivocally invoked right to remain silent and officers reinitiated interrogation; admission violated Fifth Amendment	State argued statements were admissible, some were volunteered and others harmless; waiver or non-interrogation	Court: Cross unequivocally invoked Miranda; Silcox/Soule reapproach constituted interrogation and admission was error, but error harmless beyond reasonable doubt given overwhelming other evidence
Statements to Detective Doyon	Cross challenged taped Doyon interview	State noted defense conceded admissibility at trial	Court: Challenge waived by defense concession; not reconsidered
Cumulative error / Due process	Cross claimed combined errors denied fair trial	State: only limited Miranda errors which were harmless; evidence overwhelming	Court: No cumulative prejudice; conviction and death sentence stand
Ineffective assistance of counsel (various)	Cross alleged multiple deficiencies (inexperience, investigation, tactical choices, failure to request instructions/objections) that prejudiced outcome	State maintained counsel met SPRC/ABA minima, employed reasonable tactics, and Cross showed no Strickland prejudice	Court: Counsel’s performance fell within reasonable professional norms or produced no prejudice; all Strickland claims fail

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (acceptance and effect of a plea where defendant maintains innocence but concedes sufficient evidence for conviction)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation warnings and waiver requirements)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (invocation of Miranda rights must be unequivocal)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) ("interrogation" includes words/actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412 (1985) (harmless-error standard for constitutional violations in Washington)
State v. Cross, 156 Wn.2d 580 (2006) (Cross direct appeal decision addressing many trial-phase issues)