380 P.3d 608
Wash. Ct. App.2016Background
- In October 2012 Horton was arrested at the scene after multiple gunshots; police recovered a semiautomatic pistol and eyewitness/officer testimony and videos placed him at the scene and recording his statements.
- Horton made out-of-court statements at the scene and later at the station after two Miranda advisements; during the recorded station interview he said various contradictory things about having a "lawyer."
- The State charged Horton with first-degree murder (with firearm and gang aggravators) and unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree based on a prior Florida juvenile plea with "adjudication withheld."
- Pretrial, the court held a CrR 3.5 hearing and found Horton knowingly and voluntarily waived Miranda; the court ruled his statements admissible and that his equivocal lawyer-comments did not invoke the right to counsel.
- Horton moved to exclude the Florida withheld adjudication as not a qualifying prior conviction for RCW 9.41.040; the trial court rejected this, admitted the Florida document, and the jury convicted Horton of unlawful firearm possession (first trial) and murder (after retrial).
- Horton appealed, raising (1) state-constitutional right-to-counsel arguments about counsel-invocation standards under article I, § 9, and (2) that a Florida withheld adjudication cannot serve as the predicate conviction for unlawful firearm possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether article I, § 9 of the WA Constitution requires police to treat an equivocal reference to a "lawyer" as an invocation requiring further inquiry (i.e., Robtoy standard) | Horton: WA constitution affords greater protection than federal; police should have inquired when he said "I do have a lawyer." | State/Trial court: Federal standard (Davis) applies; Horton’s statements were equivocal and did not invoke counsel. | Court: Article I, § 9 is coextensive with Fifth Amendment; no duty to further inquire; statements admissible. |
| Whether Horton’s station interview waiver was knowing and voluntary after two Miranda advisals | Horton: His lawyer-comments show invocation or confusion, so waiver was not valid. | State: Waiver was knowing; comments were unclear/contradictory and he proceeded to speak voluntarily. | Court: Trial court findings stand; waiver was valid and statements admissible. |
| Whether a Florida "withheld adjudication" constitutes a qualifying prior "conviction" under RCW 9.41.040 for unlawful possession of a firearm | Horton: Florida treats withheld adjudication as not a conviction for possession statutes, so it should not qualify in WA. | State: Washington law controls; RCW 9.41.040(3) defines "convicted" to include accepted guilty pleas and equivalent out-of-state dispositions. | Court: A plea of guilty with adjudication withheld qualifies as a conviction for predicate purposes under RCW 9.41.040(3); conviction affirmed. |
| Standard of review for treating out-of-state withheld adjudication as predicate offense | Horton: (implied) issue implicates sufficiency and facts from trial. | State: Issue is one of law—how WA treats out-of-state dispositions; should be reviewed de novo. | Court: Treated as a legal question reviewed de novo; held the withheld adjudication counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (only an unequivocal request for counsel requires cessation of interrogation)
- State v. Earls, 116 Wn.2d 364 (1991) (Washington article I, § 9 coextensive with federal Fifth Amendment regarding counsel invocation)
- State v. Radcliffe, 164 Wn.2d 900 (2008) (government bears burden to show waiver of Miranda by preponderance; suspect may invoke counsel at any time)
- State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 (1986) (framework for determining when state constitutional protections diverge from federal law)
- State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346 (1986) (procedures for pretrial motions to dismiss where evidence is insufficient; context for CrR 8.3 motions)
- State v. Heath, 168 Wn. App. 894 (2012) (treated Florida withheld adjudications as convictions for Washington offender-score and related purposes)