State Of Washington v. Randall Forest Paulson
74827-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- Police obtained arrest and search warrants after controlled buys and stopped Paulson on May 26, 2015; he was Mirandized and agreed to speak.
- At the scene Paulson told Detective Hallifax his safe was open and suggested there "may be some drugs" on his other nightstand.
- Officers searched the home and found methamphetamine in the other nightstand and drug paraphernalia in the nightstand with the open safe.
- At the station Paulson again waived rights, denied dealing but suggested he might have given drugs to people who helped him, and repeatedly demanded a Pepsi and a cigarette in exchange for information; the officer ended the interview.
- Trial court suppressed several station-house statements on ER 403 grounds but admitted the scene statements and allowed Detective Hallifax to testify that Paulson did not deny ownership when told about the search.
- Jury convicted Paulson of possession; he appealed, arguing the State improperly commented on his postarrest silence in closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State improperly commented on Paulson's postarrest silence | Paulson: Prosecutor's argument and testimony (that Paulson did not deny the meth or blame others) impermissibly penalized his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent | State: Paulson waived his Miranda rights and made substantive, crime-related statements; commenting on what he did not say was permissible | The court held no error: Paulson waived his right to silence and responded to substantive questions, so the State could comment on his failure to disclaim responsibility |
| Whether any comment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Paulson: Any error affected the verdict | State: Even if error, the initial untainted statements and the physical evidence made the error harmless | The court held any error would be constitutionally harmless because Paulson’s on-scene statements matched the search results and strong possession evidence supported conviction |
| Whether trial court erred in CrR 3.5 findings (voluntariness/waiver) | Paulson: Claimed he asked for counsel before second interview | State: Trial court found request for counsel not credible and concluded waiver was knowing and voluntary | Court: Paulson did not challenge those findings on appeal; findings are verities and were accepted |
| Whether appellate costs should be awarded | Paulson: Requests no costs due to indigency | State: May seek costs if Paulson’s financial situation has improved | Court: Affirmed conviction; directed that appellate costs not be entered against Paulson unless State proves financial change |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (established Miranda warnings and rights to remain silent and counsel)
- State v. Easter, 130 Wn.2d 228 (1996) (prohibits commenting on defendant's silence to infer guilt)
- State v. Young, 89 Wn.2d 613 (1977) (prosecutor may argue defendant's failure to disclaim guilt after voluntarily waiving Miranda and making substantive admissions)
- State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731 (2001) (distinguishes permissible comment where defendant spoke from impermissible comment on invoked silence)
- State v. Piatnitsky, 180 Wn.2d 407 (2014) (Miranda invocation must be unambiguous)
- State v. Curtiss, 161 Wn. App. 673 (2011) (comment on failure to deny was proper where defendant never invoked right to silence)