Opinion ID: 1367783
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Riley's Confessions

Text: We next consider Riley's convictions of two counts of computer trespass against Telco. We affirm the convictions. As a preliminary matter, we consider Riley's argument that these convictions, like his others, must be reversed because they are based upon evidence obtained by use of the illegal search warrant. That evidence includes a number of incriminating statements Riley made to Investigator Kitchen to the effect that Riley had on three separate days dialed Telco's general access number using his computer and modem in an attempt to obtain customer calling card codes. The State contends the computer trespass convictions can be sustained because the incriminating statements were made independently of the execution of the warrant. [7, 8] Riley raises his Fourth Amendment argument against the admission of the incriminating statements for the first time on appeal. [2] Arguments not raised in the trial court generally will not be considered on appeal. Van Vonno v. Hertz Corp., 120 Wn.2d 416, 427, 841 P.2d 1244 (1992). Moreover, although RAP 2.5(a) permits a party to raise for the first time on appeal a manifest error affecting a constitutional right, RAP 2.5(a) does not mandate appellate review of a newly raised argument where the facts necessary for its adjudication are not in the record and therefore where the error is not manifest. Here, the record is unclear as to whether any or all of Riley's incriminating statements were the product of the invalid search warrant. In particular, the record is unclear whether Riley made incriminating statements prior to being told the investigating officer had a search warrant. Because we lack the needed record for review, we decline to consider whether the Fourth Amendment requires exclusion of Riley's incriminating statements. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 83 S.Ct. 407 (1963) (incriminating statements that are indirect fruits of an illegal search are inadmissible when they bear a sufficiently close relationship to the underlying illegality); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04, 45 L.Ed.2d 416, 95 S.Ct. 2254 (1975) (listing factors to guide determination whether underlying illegality taints incriminating statements); New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 19, 109 L.Ed.2d 13, 110 S.Ct. 1640 (1990) (attenuation analysis required only where evidence is somehow product of illegal governmental activity); see generally Annot., Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Excluding Evidence Derived From Information Gained in Illegal Search, 43 A.L.R.3d 385, 397 (1972) (explaining that fruits doctrine applies to confession obtained via an illegal search). [9] Thus, we shall assume Riley's admission that he had dialed Telco's general access number in an attempt to obtain customer calling card codes was properly admitted against him, despite the invalidity of the search warrant used in the search of Riley's home subsequent to the time he made that admission. A confession alone, however, will not sustain a conviction unless it is corroborated by independent proof sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of the crime. State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165, 178, 691 P.2d 197 (1984); State v. Cunningham, 23 Wn. App. 826, 855-56, 598 P.2d 756 (1979). The independent evidence need not ... establish the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance of the proof. State v. Meyer, 37 Wn.2d 759, 763, 226 P.2d 204 (1951). The evidence need only support a logical and reasonable deduction that the crime occurred. State v. Hamrick, 19 Wn. App. 417, 419, 576 P.2d 912 (1978). Here, there are two pieces of evidence to corroborate Riley's admission: Cal Edwards's observation of hacking activity on January 10 and 11, and U S West's tracing of the hacking to Riley's home on January 11. When Riley's admission and the independent corroborating evidence are considered together, there is sufficient evidence to sustain Riley's conviction of the two counts of computer trespass against Telco. We therefore affirm Riley's conviction of these two counts.