State Of Washington, Respondent V. Eric Paul Day, Appellant
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) ERIC PAUL DAY, ) ) Appellant. ) ________________________________) DIVISION ONE No. 62659-1-I UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: August 2, 2010 Dwyer, C.J. Eric Paul Day appeals from his conviction of child molestation in the second degree. Day contends that evidence of incriminating statements that he made to a sheriff s deputy should have been suppressed because the deputy did not advise him of his Miranda1 rights. We disagree. The United States Supreme Court recently explained that [w]here the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused s uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent. Berghuis v. Thompkins, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2250, 2262, __ L. Ed. 2d __ (2010). Even when a suspect makes a statement many hours after receiving a Miranda warning, such a statement indicates waiver as [p]olice are not required to rewarn suspects from time to 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). No. 62659-1-I / 2 time. Berghuis, 130 S. Ct. at 2263. Day made the statements at issue while being transported by a sheriff s deputy in the deputy s vehicle after he had completed a polygraph examination. Prior to the commencement of the polygraph examination, the polygraph examiner advised Day as to his Miranda rights. The deputy who subsequently transported Day had observed Day receive that advice but did not further advise Day of his rights. Assuming that Day was in custody and subject to interrogation while in the deputy s vehicle, the deputy was not required to further advise Day as to his rights because Day had previously been advised and his subsequent statements constituted a waiver of those rights. Berghuis, 130 S. Ct. at 2263. There is no contention that Day either was improperly advised by the examiner or misunderstood his rights, was coerced into making statements in the deputy s vehicle, or was somehow released from custody at the conclusion of the examination and then taken back into custody once inside the deputy s vehicle. Accordingly, Day waived his Miranda rights. Berghuis, 130 S. Ct. at 2262 63. The trial court did not err. Affirmed. We concur: -2- No. 62659-1-I / 3 -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
