Opinion ID: 2590657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: admittance of compelled statement

Text: ¶ 78 Woods claims, finally, that during the reading of his Miranda [14] rights, Detective Grabenstein failed to tell him that he had a constitutional right to stop answering questions at any time until he talked to a lawyer. Am. Pet. at 206. Because of this alleged omission, Woods argues, the statement he made to the detectives should not have been admitted into evidence. ¶ 79 Under Miranda, a suspect in custody must be warned prior to any questioning that: (1) he has the absolute right to remain silent, (2) anything that he says can be used against him, (3) he has the right to have counsel present before and during questioning, and (4) if he cannot afford counsel, one will be appointed to him. State v. Brown, 132 Wash.2d 529, 582, 940 P.2d 546 (1997) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602). Here, Detective Grabenstein read those warnings to Woods from a constitutional rights card. VRP at 2732. On this card, there are two questions: (1) Do you understand these rights, and (2) Do you want to give up these rights and answer my questions. Id. at 2734. After each of these questions, Woods wrote yes. Id. ¶ 80 Although suspects must be advised of their Miranda rights, the United States Supreme Court and this court have stated that there is no requirement that the warnings be given in the precise language stated in Miranda. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 202-03, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989); Brown, 132 Wash.2d at 582, 940 P.2d 546. The question is whether the warnings reasonably and effectively conveyed to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda.  Id. ¶ 81 Woods seems to contend that there is a fifth warning that must be added to the Miranda warnings  the right to stop answering at any time until he talks to a lawyer. See Am. Pet. at 207. For support, he relies on Duckworth. In Duckworth, the police department advised the defendant of his Miranda rights from a form that included the statement, `You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you've talked to a lawyer.' Duckworth, 492 U.S. at 198, 109 S.Ct. 2875. The actual issue presented in Duckworth was whether the Miranda rights given, with the language `[w]e have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court,' properly complied with Miranda. Id. at 198, 109 S.Ct. 2875. The United States Supreme Court held that the warnings touched all of the bases required by Miranda.  Id. at 203, 109 S.Ct. 2875. Citing this language from Duckworth, Woods argues that a proper Miranda warning must include the language, you also have the right to stop answering questions at any time until you've talked to a lawyer. This argument is flawed. Just because the Supreme Court stated that the warnings given in Duckworth touched all bases does not mean that all elements in the Duckworth warnings must be present for the warnings to be effective. ¶ 82 As stated before, there is no requirement that the Miranda be given precisely as stated in Miranda v. Arizona . As long as the warnings are reasonably and effectively conveyed to the suspect, they are deemed proper. The actual Miranda warnings read to Woods by Detective Grabenstein were as follows: I am Mark Henderson and Rick Grabenstein, deputy sheriff. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to an attorney before answering any questions.... You have the right to have your attorney present during the questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you without cost before any questioning if you so desire. RP at 2733. From the above excerpt, it is clear that Woods was given proper Miranda warnings. Although they are not word for word from Miranda v. Arizona , the message they convey is clear.