State Of Washington, V Edwin Lizarraga Canche
49191-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Police stopped Lizarraga-Canche driving a car later determined to be stolen; Officer Endresen read Miranda rights from an English-language card twice in the patrol car.
- Lizarraga-Canche is a native Spanish speaker who testified (through an interpreter) that he spoke both Spanish and English and had lived in the U.S. since 2002; at the scene he said he was "fine" speaking English and initially declined to talk but then gave statements about how he acquired the car.
- Charged with possession of a stolen motor vehicle; after he missed a pretrial readiness hearing, the State amended to add a bail-jumping charge and later called the arraignment interpreter to testify about notice of the April 7 hearing.
- At a CrR 3.5 hearing the trial court admitted the custodial statements, finding Lizarraga-Canche understood the rights when read in English (oral findings only).
- At trial the court initially orally said it would grant a motion to dismiss the bail-jumping charge for lack of proof of knowledge but then exercised discretion to allow the State to reopen and call the interpreter; jury convicted on both counts.
- On appeal he challenged (1) Miranda waiver given in English, (2) double jeopardy from the court’s oral dismissal then reopening, (3) prosecutorial misconduct in closing, and (4) ineffective assistance for failure to object.
Issues
| Issue | Lizarraga-Canche's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of custodial statements (Miranda waiver language) | Miranda rights read in English to a native Spanish speaker prevented a knowing, intelligent waiver | Defendant indicated he was "fine" speaking English; officers observed him converse in English; waiver can be implied | Admitted: court’s oral findings supported by substantial evidence; implied waiver valid |
| Double jeopardy from initially granting dismissal then allowing State to reopen | Oral grant of motion to dismiss terminated jeopardy; reopening violated double jeopardy | Oral ruling was not final; no formal dismissal entered so jeopardy never terminated | No double jeopardy violation: oral ruling not final; court properly allowed reopening |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (knowledge and burden of proof) | Prosecutor misstated knowledge element and improperly shifted burden, implying jury must find reason to acquit | Argument was contextual and permissibly urged reasonable inference of actual knowledge; any problematic burden statement was isolated and curable | No reversible misconduct: knowledge argument proper in context; burden comment, if improper, was waived for lack of objection |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to prosecutor | Counsel deficient for not objecting; prejudice resulted | Strategic choice to avoid highlighting prosecutor’s remark; objections during closings are uncommon | No ineffective assistance: tactical decision plausible; not so egregious to overcome presumption of effectiveness |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation and warnings requirement)
- State v. Mayer, 184 Wn.2d 548 (standard for knowing and intelligent Miranda waiver)
- State v. Terrovona, 105 Wn.2d 632 (implied waiver by volunteering information)
- State v. Collins, 112 Wn.2d 303 (oral rulings are not final for double jeopardy purposes)
- State v. Ervin, 158 Wn.2d 746 (double jeopardy framework)
- State v. Warren, 165 Wn.2d 17 (prosecutor misstatements of burden can be cured by instruction)
- State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (discussion of prosecutorial misconduct and waiver by failure to object)