State Of Washington, / Cross-app. v. Ezekiel James Watkins, / Cross-res.
73352-4
Wash. Ct. App.Dec 11, 2017Background
- Ezekiel Watkins voluntarily went to a police station for an interview about the disappearance of Kathy Chou; he was not arrested, not handcuffed, told he was free to leave, and sat nearest a door that could be opened from inside.
- During the interview Watkins initially denied involvement but later admitted seeing Chou that night, then first said she cut her own throat, and later admitted stabbing her after detectives confronted him and placed a shovel in view.
- Watkins made an initial confession before receiving Miranda warnings; police then read Miranda, he waived, and made further statements and led police to the burial site. He was charged with first degree murder and convicted following admission of his statements at a CrR 3.5 hearing.
- Watkins claimed (1) his prewarning confession should have been suppressed as the product of a custodial interrogation; (2) postwarning statements were tainted by a question‑first tactic (Siebert); (3) his Miranda waiver was involuntary due to cognitive impairment; (4) certain evidence and summaries should be suppressed under the Washington Privacy Act because video recording continued after audio recorder was turned off; (5) the search warrant for his parents’ home was overbroad; and (6) the trial court abused discretion by replacing a juror with an alternate.
- The trial court admitted the statements, denied the privacy‑act suppression request, upheld the search warrant, replaced Juror 13 with an alternate for a family medical emergency, and Watkins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Watkins) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interview was custodial requiring Miranda before first confession | Interview at police station, confrontational tactics, and placement of shovel made a reasonable person feel freedom curtailed | Watkins went voluntarily, was told he could leave, and circumstances comparable to noncustodial Mathiason | Not custodial; no Miranda violation pre‑confession |
| Whether post‑Miranda statements must be suppressed under Siebert (question‑first) | Police used question‑first technique; postwarning confession should be suppressed | Siebert applies to calculated midstream warnings after custodial interrogation; not applicable here because initial statement was noncustodial | Siebert inapplicable; postwarning statements admissible |
| Whether Watkins knowingly and voluntarily waived Miranda given cognitive impairment | Cognitive disabilities prevented an intelligent, voluntary waiver | Expert testimony showed Watkins tracked the interview and could waive; trial court credited State expert | Waiver voluntary and intelligent; trial court’s finding supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether recording conversations without telling Watkins violated the Privacy Act and required suppression of derivative evidence | Video recording continued after audio recorder was turned off and without notice; evidence and derivative fruits should be excluded | Conversations during custodial interrogation are not "private" under Privacy Act; remedy not required | Conversations were not private in custodial setting; trial court did not err denying suppression |
| Whether search warrant for parents’ home was overbroad / insufficiently particular | Warrant’s clause authorizing "any other item . . . reasonably believed associated" allowed rummaging through personal effects | Warrant limited seizure to items related to homicide and provided sufficient nexus; similar language upheld in prior cases | Warrant sufficiently particular; not overbroad |
| Whether dismissal of juror for family medical emergency was abuse of discretion | Defense argued for brief delay instead of excusal | Trial court questioned juror and reasonably concluded excusal was warranted given uncertainty about absence duration and trial impact | No abuse of discretion; replacement with alternate permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required when custodial interrogation)
- Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (voluntary stationhouse interview not necessarily custodial)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (question‑first strategy can render postwarning confession inadmissible in certain custodial contexts)
- State v. Lorenz, 152 Wn.2d 22 (Washington discussion of custody and coercive environment)
- United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.) (custody found where interview occurred during home search with multiple officers present)