State v. Abdulle, 275 P.3d 1113

Abdulle was charged in King County Superior Court with two counts of forgery and one count of first degree theft after he allegedly attempted to deposit forged payroll checks and was identified in surveillance and by victims as taking the checks.
Bank and police investigation followed the August 2008 arrest; Abdulle admitted involvement during interrogation, claiming he was willing to talk after being shown photos, and asked for counsel at one point.
The CrR 3.5 confession hearing admitted Abdulle's statements over objections that the state had not provided corroboration of waiver, and the jury later found him guilty on all counts.
Abdulle appealed, arguing the State failed to meet the Davis requirement for corroboration to prove a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the missing witness rule required explanation or corroborating witnesses, and that Abdulle’s confession should have been suppressed unless corroboration was shown.
The Washington Supreme Court overruled Davis, holding that the State may prove voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence and that failure to call a second officer is not per se inadmissible; convictions affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Davis should be overruled and Miranda waiver proof may use preponderance of the evidence	Abdulle (State) argues Davis is incorrect after Lego, and waiver can be proven by preponderance.	Abdulle contends Davis correctly required corroboration beyond a mere swearing contest to prove waiver.	Davis overruled; waiver can be proven by preponderance.
Whether the absence of a second corroborating officer requires suppression	State need not call all witnesses; lack of corroboration does not automatically render statements inadmissible.	Abdulle argues absence of corroborating officer under Davis should suppress the confession.	Absence permits negative inference but is not mandatory suppression.
Whether Davis's remaining protections against custodial interrogation were properly balanced after Lego	State may rely on a preponderance of evidence to prove voluntariness consistent with Lego.	Davis provided essential safeguards beyond a mere 'swearing contest' to protect against coercion and deception.	Davis overruled; the majority concludes voluntariness can be shown by preponderance.

State v. Davis, 73 Wash.2d 271 (1968) (held missing witness rule; required corroboration for waiver)
Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (1972) (clarified heavy burden may be met by preponderance)
State v. Braun, 82 Wash.2d 157 (1973) (State bears burden to prove voluntariness by preponderance)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requires government to show knowing and intelligent waiver)
State v. Erho, 77 Wash.2d 553 (1970) (importance of corroborating testimony for voluntariness)
State v. Furth, 82 Wash. 665 (1914) (early abatement/policy considerations (historical context))
State v. Devin, 158 Wash.2d 157 (2006) (overruled Furth regarding conviction outcomes on appeal)
Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wash.2d 138 (2004) (stare decisis and when to overrule established rules)