State Of Washington, V. Viviana Vanesa Rangel-ochoa, 81699-3

Victim Saucedo Castro identified two masked intruders in her bedroom as friends Anthony Abraham and Viviana (Vanesa) Rangel-Ochoa; multiple high-end items were taken and later identified from surveillance.
Detectives arrested Rangel-Ochoa, read Miranda rights, and conducted a recorded interview at the station where she repeatedly denied involvement.
While being transported back to her apartment for a warrant execution, Rangel-Ochoa spontaneously told police she had purchased a YSL purse and MCM wallet from Abraham for $1,200; police recovered those items and the victim identified them.
Rangel-Ochoa moved to suppress statements made in the patrol car as coerced; the court held a CrR 3.5 hearing and found all statements voluntary and admissible.
A jury convicted Rangel-Ochoa of residential burglary; the court later ordered restitution of $4,384.30 after a post-sentencing hearing where the State introduced victim declarations and corroborating documentation.
Rangel-Ochoa appealed, challenging (1) admission of her patrol-car statements, (2) prosecutor misconduct for calling her “the unluckiest person” and emotional appeals, and (3) the restitution order for lack of an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of patrol-car statements (coercion/voluntariness)	Rangel-Ochoa: driving her to the scene and custodial context coerced her spontaneous statements; should be suppressed.	State: statements were voluntary, not elicited by interrogation, and defendant knew and waived Miranda.	Court: admitted statements; substantial evidence supports voluntariness and no overborne will.
Prosecutorial misconduct ("unluckiest" remark and emotional appeal)	Rangel-Ochoa: prosecutor shifted burden/created false choice by saying jurors must find many witnesses lying to acquit; appealed to emotion about victim moving.	State: remarks were fair credibility argument and reasonable inference from conflicting testimony; prosecutor reiterated burden on State.	Court: no misconduct; comments were permissible credibility argument and did not shift burden or improperly inflame emotions.
Restitution hearing adequacy	Rangel-Ochoa: denied due process because court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing and relied on hearsay affidavit without sufficient corroboration.	State: provided victim declaration plus corroborating photos and online values; preponderance and reasonable basis suffice; defense objected but did not seek continuance.	Court: restitution $4,384.30 affirmed; evidence met preponderance standard and judge did not abuse discretion.

State v. DeLeon, 185 Wn.2d 478 (2016) (voluntariness standard for statements)
State v. Broadaway, 133 Wn.2d 118 (1997) (will-overborne test for involuntariness)
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) (coercive interrogation/context analysis; facts distinguishable)
State v. Unga, 165 Wn.2d 95 (2008) (police psychological ploys and voluntariness)
State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438 (2011) (prosecutor latitude in closing argument)
State v. Barrow, 60 Wn. App. 869 (1991) (improper false-choice burden-shifting by prosecutor)
State v. Fleming, 83 Wn. App. 209 (1996) (prosecutor may not force jury to believe witnesses must be lying to acquit)
State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517 (2007) (restitution: State must prove amount by preponderance)
State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272 (2005) (restitution need not be exact; ‘‘easily ascertainable’’ but not precise)
State v. Kisor, 68 Wn. App. 610 (1993) (hearsay allowed at restitution; need sufficient corroboration for rebuttal)