State Of Washington v. Navarone Gregory Randmel, 73531-4

Background

In Dec 2014–Jan 2015 Bellingham police linked Randmel to multiple stolen vehicles; he was twice seen driving stolen cars and fled; a third incident ended when a K-9 caught him and he was Mirandized at the scene.
Randmel waived Miranda initially and spoke to Officer Douglas; later at the hospital Officer Woodward questioned him about prior K-9 tracks and Randmel twice said he "would rather not say," then made statements confirming aspects of the tracks.
Randmel testified at trial claiming an alibi for the first two incidents and limited involvement in the third (taking boots only).
Charged with three counts of possession of a stolen vehicle, two counts of resisting arrest, and one count of obstructing an officer; the trial court admitted Randmel’s hospital statements after a CrR 3.5 hearing and a jury convicted him on all counts.
The trial court imposed approximately $2,250 in discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) without conducting an individualized inquiry into Randmel’s ability to pay; Randmel was later found indigent for appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Randmel)	Held
Whether including a definitional list of means of "possession" in the to-convict instruction required the State to prove every listed method	The instruction simply defined possession; the State need only prove the statutory elements of single-means crime	The added definitional alternatives created extra elements the State failed to prove, requiring reversal	Court: Followed Musacchio/Tyler—sufficiency is measured against statutory elements; no requirement to prove every definitional method; conviction affirmed
Whether Randmel unequivocally invoked his Miranda right to remain silent, making subsequent questioning and statements inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment	Officers reasonably continued questioning because invocation was equivocal; admission proper	Randmel argued "would rather not say" was an unequivocal invocation and subsequent statements should be suppressed	Court: Invocation was equivocal; under federal law officers need not stop; statements admissible
Whether Washington Constitution (art. I, §9) requires broader protection than the Fifth Amendment when invocation is equivocal	State argued no broader protection (Earls/Horton) and federal standard applies	Randmel urged a Gunwall analysis to show state constitution offers greater protection, requiring officers to stop except to clarify	Court: Performed limited Gunwall analysis (factors 4 and 6) and concluded no persuasive basis to expand state protection here; federal standard controls
Whether prosecutor’s closing comment referring to Randmel’s refusal to answer certain questions improperly commented on silence	State: references described testimony and were not a comment on exercise of right; no contemporaneous objection	Randmel: comment penalized his invocation of rights and was improper	Court: No error—he did not validly invoke the right; claim not preserved; remarks permissible as references to testimony

Key Cases Cited

Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (jury instructions that add an extra element do not change the sufficiency inquiry, which looks to statutory elements)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (invocation of right to remain silent must be unequivocal; officer need not cease questioning on equivocal remarks)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (clarifies standard for ambiguous invocations of right to counsel; reasonable officer standard)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings; waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24 (1994) (Gunwall framework and limits on treating state constitution as broader than federal protections)
Gunwall v. State, 106 Wn.2d 1 (1986) (six-factor test for determining whether state constitution affords greater protection than federal counterpart)
State v. Piatnitsky, 180 Wn.2d 407 (2014) (discusses standards for Miranda waiver and invocation under Washington law)
State v. Tyler, 195 Wn. App. 385 (2016) (applies Musacchio to hold that including multiple means in instruction does not add elements the State must prove)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (trial courts must make individualized inquiry into defendant's current and future ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs)