State v. Pierce, 280 P.3d 1158

Yarr couple murdered; their house burned; ATM video shows Pierce using debit card.
Pierce was arrested for debit-card theft; he invoked right to counsel after being accused of murder.
Corrections failed to promptly place Pierce in contact with a lawyer after his request.
Approximately five hours later, Pierce made incriminating statements to detectives.
Trial admitted these statements; prosecutorial rebuttal argued in highly inflammatory, speculative terms.
Appellate issue: whether CrR 3.1(c)(2) violations and prosecutorial misconduct require reversal; court remands for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
CrR 3.1(c)(2) invocation of counsel	Pierce unequivocally requested counsel; jail failed to provide contact.	Trial court found the request equivocal and that reasonable efforts were made.	Convictions reversed for CrR 3.1(c)(2) violation.
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Prosecutor argued facts outside record and inflamed jury with narrative.	Arguments were within prosecutorial latitude, not reversible error.	Convictions reversed for prosecutorial misconduct.
Counsel disqualification issue	Conflict of interest prevented fair trial.	Trial court properly denied disqualification.	No error; remanded for new trial with potential for re-evaluation.
Harmless error analysis	CrR 3.1(c)(2) violation was harmless.	Violation was prejudicial, not harmless.	Not harmless; reversal warranted.

State v. Lorenz, 152 Wn.2d 22 (Wash. 2004) (uncontested findings treated as verities; de novo review of legal conclusions)
State v. Grogan, 147 Wn. App. 511 (Wash. App. 2008) (standard for reviewing CrR 3.5 findings and law from findings)
State v. Solomon, 114 Wn. App. 781 (Wash. App. 2002) (use of CrR 3.5 findings on appeal)
State v. Kirkpatrick, 89 Wn. App. 407 (Wash. App. 1997) (earliest opportunity to place in contact with attorney; reinitiation does not cure)
City of Tacoma v. Myhre, 32 Wn. App. 661 (Wash. App. 1982) (insufficient efforts; must provide means to contact attorney after hours)
City of Seattle v. Wakenight, 24 Wn. App. 48 (Wash. App. 1979) (minimal efforts sufficiently satisfy CrR 3.1(c)(2) in some contexts)
City of Seattle v. Carpenito, 32 Wn. App. 809 (Wash. App. 1982) (access to phone and attorney numbers; vary with circumstances)
United States v. Lee, 413 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2005) (unequivocal requests for counsel analyzed across circuits)
People v. Cook, 665 P.2d 640 (Colo. App. 1983) (phrase indicating unequivocal invocation of counsel)
Borboa v. State, 157 Wn.2d 108 (Wash. 2006) (golden rule-like arguments and passion appeals analyzed)
Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759 (Wash. 2006) (prosecutorial discretion; curability of misstatements by instructions)
Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (Wash. 2012) (prosecutorial misconduct; required prejudice test and cure by instructions)