State of Washington v. Rogelio Nunez, 34094-5

Defendant Rogelio Nunez was interviewed at the sheriff's office about child-molestation allegations after agreeing to come in following work; he was not handcuffed, not under arrest, and drove himself there.
Officers built rapport for ~10 minutes in an interview room; Detective Nunez read a Spanish advisement-of-rights form but—according to the trial court—omitted the sentence that “anything you say can be used against you.”
Nunez initialed the form twice (acknowledgment and waiver) and within minutes confessed: first to groping one child, then to additional acts involving another child.
At the CrR 3.5 suppression hearing, the trial court found the advisement inadequate and that the interrogation was coercive, suppressing all confessions; the State sought to reopen testimony after closings but the trial court refused.
The State moved for reconsideration and discretionary review; appellate court granted review to decide (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen testimony and (2) whether Nunez was in custody when he made his statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to reopen testimony after closing arguments began?	State: reopening was warranted to clarify unexpected testimony and avoid prejudice.	Nunez: trial court properly closed testimony and finality prevents endless reopening.	No abuse of discretion; court reasonably declined to reopen.
Were Nunez's statements custodial (triggering Miranda) when made at the sheriff's office?	State: station-house interrogation and subsequent statements required Miranda—so statements were admissible because noncustodial.	Nunez: interview setting and coercive purpose made the statements custodial and inadmissible.	Mixed: interview initially noncustodial; custody began when Nunez confessed to the first crime.
Were the Miranda warnings adequate?	State: rights were read and Nunez initialed and waived.	Nunez: warning omitted the “anything you say can be used against you” sentence; advisement was constitutionally deficient.	Advisement was inadequate (trial court finding supported); warnings lacking before first confession require suppression of subsequent statements.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requires warnings before custodial interrogation)
Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977) (station-house questioning alone does not make encounter custodial)
California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (voluntary station interview not necessarily custodial if suspect is told he is not under arrest)
State v. Daniels, 160 Wn.2d 256 (2007) (statements given after the point custody attaches must be suppressed if Miranda warnings were deficient)
State v. Lorenz, 152 Wn.2d 22 (2004) (custody assessed by whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the interview)
State v. Garvin, 166 Wn.2d 242 (2009) (standard of review for CrR 3.5 suppression rulings)