State Of Washington v. Rose I. Gordon, 74952-8

Rose I. Gordon, born in Tonga, was arrested after a search of her home revealed sexual images of her daughter C.H.; she admitted in an English-language police interview to digitally penetrating C.H. and to directing sexual acts, and incriminating photos dated April 19 and June 7, 2014 were recovered.
Gordon was charged in a 15-count information, including first degree rape of a child (count I, alleged between Oct 1, 2013–Nov 7, 2014) and first degree child molestation (count III, April 19, 2014).
At a CrR 3.5 hearing the trial court reviewed the interview transcript and recording and found Gordon substantially fluent in English and that her Miranda waiver was knowing and voluntary.
At trial Gordon (with a Tongan interpreter available) conceded the acts but asserted duress/coercion by her husband Ricky; the jury rejected duress and convicted on all counts except one.
Gordon appealed contending (1) language barrier invalidated her Miranda waiver and (2) convictions on count I and count III violated double jeopardy because they might be based on the same act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Miranda waiver	Gordon: her English was insufficient to knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily waive rights	State: waiver was valid; interview showed comprehension and responsiveness in English	Court: waiver valid; substantial evidence supports trial court findings
Double jeopardy between count I (rape) and count III (molestation)	Gordon: overlapping charging periods meant jury could have used same act for both convictions	State: it was manifestly apparent jury was instructed/elected separate acts and State identified distinct incidents	Court: no double jeopardy; State clearly elected separate incidents for each count

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes custodial interrogation warnings and waiver requirements)
North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (waiver validity judged by totality of the circumstances)
State v. Teran, 71 Wn. App. 668 (language barriers are relevant to Miranda waiver analysis)
State v. Broadway, 133 Wn.2d 118 (standard of review after CrR 3.5 hearing)
State v. Halstien, 122 Wn.2d 109 (definition of substantial evidence)
State v. Hill, 123 Wn.2d 641 (deference to trial court credibility findings)
State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646 (double jeopardy—manifestly apparent standard)
State v. Land, 172 Wn. App. 593 (when oral-genital contact supports multiple sexual offense charges, jury must base convictions on separate acts)