State of Washington v. Sergio Magana, Jr.
197 Wash. App. 189
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim (Y.L.), age 14, met appellant Sergio Magana, Jr. via Facebook; Magana (mid-20s) raped her in her home; he later texted her to delete messages and said her age scared him.
- Y.L. reported the assault ~2 weeks later, identified Magana in a photo lineup, and provided her phone texts.
- Magana spoke to police by phone, failed to attend an initial voluntary interview, then later met police, was Mirandized, and denied intercourse.
- Magana was tried (after a mistrial), convicted of third-degree rape of a child, and given community custody with multiple conditions and fees.
- On appeal Magana raised: (1) admission of his pre‑arrest silence; (2) an in limine violation (pre‑Miranda statement); (3) improper admission of a Lineup ID Report as a business record; and (4) several sentencing errors including an overbroad/no‑contact condition and duplicate jury fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admitting evidence of Magana's pre‑arrest failure to appear | State: pre‑arrest silence was admissible absent a clear invocation of Fifth Amendment (Salinas controls) | Magana: Easter/Lewis require exclusion of pre‑arrest silence as commentary on right to silence | Court: Admissible — Salinas governs; no custody and no express invocation, so no Fifth Amendment bar |
| In limine/Miranda violation — officer testified to pre‑Miranda remark | Magana: testimony violated in limine order and warranted mistrial | State: testimony inadvertent, curative instruction given, testimony not highly prejudicial | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying mistrial; error was minor and curative instruction sufficed |
| Admission of Lineup ID Report (business records foundation) | Magana: Report was hearsay and lacked foundation; improperly admitted | State: Exhibit admitted as business records (but failed to lay foundation for page 2) | Court: Admission of that page was error (no foundation) but harmless — overwhelming evidence of age difference |
| Sentencing errors — no‑contact scope, duplicate jury fee, other community custody conditions | Magana: no‑contact and CCO‑designation condition (condition 14) is unconstitutionally vague; only one jury fee should be imposed; challenges to other conditions | State: condition appropriate given sex‑offense and social‑media use; two juries were empaneled across proceedings | Held: Strike and remand to correct condition 14 (vague re: CCO discretion); reduce no‑contact to sentence‑consistent term; correct jury fee to a single $250 charge; other contested community custody conditions upheld as crime‑related and not overbroad |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation warnings rule)
- Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013) (pre‑arrest silence admissible absent express invocation of Fifth Amendment)
- State v. Easter, 130 Wn.2d 228 (1996) (pre‑Salinas Washington precedent on silence)
- State v. Lewis, 130 Wn.2d 700 (1996) (pre‑Salinas Washington precedent on silence)
- State v. Grieff, 141 Wn.2d 910 (2000) (cumulative error doctrine)
- State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739 (2008) (vagueness and limits on delegating prohibited‑place designation)
- State v. Irwin, 191 Wn. App. 644 (2015) (review of community custody conditions)