Opinion ID: 1169298
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: issues

Text: CONCLUSION. Although the defendant did not make a written waiver of his Miranda [23] rights, his custodial statements were made after he had impliedly waived his Miranda rights and, therefore, were properly admitted into evidence. [6] A suspect in a criminal case may waive his right to remain silent provided such waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. [24] If these elements are satisfied, comments a suspect makes are admissible as evidence. [25] A valid waiver may be expressly made by a suspect or implied from the facts of a custodial interrogation. As held in State v. Adams, 76 Wn.2d 650, 671, 458 P.2d 558 (1969), rev'd on other grounds, 403 U.S. 947, 29 L.Ed.2d 855, 91 S.Ct. 2273 (1971): The Supreme Court has not required an express statement by the accused for an effective waiver, but rather has forbidden the presumption that an intelligent waiver was made simply from the fact that a statement was eventually extricated from the accused after he was warned of his rights. Some additional showing is required that the inherently coercive atmosphere of custodial interrogation has not disabled the accused from making a free and rational choice. Implied waiver has been found where the record reveals that a defendant understood his rights and volunteered information after reaching such understanding. [26] Waiver has also been inferred where the record shows that a defendant's answers were freely and voluntarily made without duress, promise or threat and with a full understanding of his constitutional rights. [27] Here, although there was some confusion in the matter, the trial court found that the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, understood them, then voluntarily waived them and participated in a discussion with the detectives. In that discussion, a detective said that Gene was dead and asked the defendant where he had been that evening. The defendant said he had been with friends and added that he objected to any search of his apartment. The defendant then also said he didn't shoot Gene, and when a detective said they had never said that Gene was shot, the defendant said he thought the police were looking for a gun. He then asked for an attorney and the interrogation ceased. Nothing in our review of the record shows that the defendant was coerced into making any statements while in custody. The facts sustain the trial court's finding of implied waiver.