Opinion · Washington Court of Appeals Opinions
STATE v. KOFFIE, 127 Wn. App. 1038 (2005)
STATE OF Wash., Respondent, v. JAMES C. KOFFIE, AKA JAMES BOFA,Appellant., 127 Wash. App. 1038 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Washington Court of Appeals Opinions
- Jurisdiction
- Washington
- Date
- 2005-01-01
- Topic
- general
STATE v. KOFFIE, 127 Wn. App. 1038 (2005) STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JAMES C. KOFFIE, AKA JAMES BOFA,Appellant.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. KOFFIE, 127 Wn. App. 1038 (2005). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
STATE v. KOFFIE,127 Wn. App. 1038(2005)
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JAMES C. KOFFIE, AKA JAMES BOFA,
Appellant.
No. 54503-5-I
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: May 23, 2005
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No:04-1-09114-1. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 06/04/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Robert H. Alsdorf.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Eric J. Nielsen, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Ian Michael Goodhew, King Co Pros Ofc, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2390.
Prosecuting Atty King County, King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Eric J. Nielsen, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Ian Michael Goodhew, King Co Pros Ofc, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2390.
Prosecuting Atty King County, King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
James Koffie contends his jury conviction for indecent exposure should be reversed because the trial court erroneously found that he waived his right to remain silent and admitted a non-verbal response to a police officer's question. We disagree and affirm.
A woman saw Koffie sitting in his car in a grocery store parking lot. Koffie had his pants off and was masturbating. The woman called the police and they apprehended Koffie shortly after he drove off.
Officer Rotton arrested Koffie, read him his Miranda1rights, and asked Koffie if he understood them. Koffie responded that he did. The officer asked Koffie if he would talk about the incident and Koffie nodded his head up and down. The officer asked Koffie what he was doing in the parking lot and Koffie replied `No comment'.2The officer asked Koffie if all he was doing was exposing himself and Koffie nodded affirmatively.
The State charged Koffie with indecent exposure. Prior to trial, Koffie moved to suppress his responses to Officer Rotton's questions. Koffie testified that when the officer asked if he wanted to talk about the incident, he said `No. No comment.' Koffie testified that he was shaking his head because he could not believe the police had stopped him. He denied that he nodded his head up and down and testified it was more side-to-side.
The trial court found that Koffie's testimony about head nodding and head shaking was `singularly incredible.'3The court noted that when Koffie was testifying affirmatively, he was nodding his head up and down, and that when he was testifying negatively, he was shaking his head from side to side. The court also noted that Koffie was evasive and found him not credible. The court found Officer Rotton's testimony credible, found that Koffie waived his Miranda rights, and allowed the statements into evidence.
The victim and the arresting officers testified about the incident. Koffie denied exposing himself. The jury convicted Koffie and he has appealed.
Koffie contends the State did not prove that his non-verbal response to Officer Rotton's question about whether he was exposing himself amounted to a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to silence. He also contends his `no comment' response was a clear indication he did not want to talk to the police.
We review a trial court's ruling on a CrR 3.5 motion to determine whether substantial evidence supports the challenged findings and whether the findings support the conclusions of law.4Unchallenged findings are verities,5and we will not disturb credibility determinations on appeal.6In reviewing a trial court's determination that a statement is voluntary, we ask whether there is substantial evidence in the record from which the trial court could have found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statement was voluntary.7
There is substantial evidence, from Officer Rotton's testimony, that Koffie understood his Miranda rights, that he agreed to talk to the officer, and that he affirmatively indicated that all he was doing was exposing himself. We will not examine the trial court's determination that Koffie was not credible. There was no error in admitting Koffie's responses.
A defendant may invoke his right to remain silent after questioning begins but the invocation must be `clear and unequivocal'.8Koffie's `no comment' response, followed by a response to the next question, was not a clear and unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent.
Affirmed.
BAKER, ELLINGTON and BECKER, JJ.
A woman saw Koffie sitting in his car in a grocery store parking lot. Koffie had his pants off and was masturbating. The woman called the police and they apprehended Koffie shortly after he drove off.
Officer Rotton arrested Koffie, read him his Miranda1rights, and asked Koffie if he understood them. Koffie responded that he did. The officer asked Koffie if he would talk about the incident and Koffie nodded his head up and down. The officer asked Koffie what he was doing in the parking lot and Koffie replied `No comment'.2The officer asked Koffie if all he was doing was exposing himself and Koffie nodded affirmatively.
The State charged Koffie with indecent exposure. Prior to trial, Koffie moved to suppress his responses to Officer Rotton's questions. Koffie testified that when the officer asked if he wanted to talk about the incident, he said `No. No comment.' Koffie testified that he was shaking his head because he could not believe the police had stopped him. He denied that he nodded his head up and down and testified it was more side-to-side.
The trial court found that Koffie's testimony about head nodding and head shaking was `singularly incredible.'3The court noted that when Koffie was testifying affirmatively, he was nodding his head up and down, and that when he was testifying negatively, he was shaking his head from side to side. The court also noted that Koffie was evasive and found him not credible. The court found Officer Rotton's testimony credible, found that Koffie waived his Miranda rights, and allowed the statements into evidence.
The victim and the arresting officers testified about the incident. Koffie denied exposing himself. The jury convicted Koffie and he has appealed.
Koffie contends the State did not prove that his non-verbal response to Officer Rotton's question about whether he was exposing himself amounted to a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to silence. He also contends his `no comment' response was a clear indication he did not want to talk to the police.
We review a trial court's ruling on a CrR 3.5 motion to determine whether substantial evidence supports the challenged findings and whether the findings support the conclusions of law.4Unchallenged findings are verities,5and we will not disturb credibility determinations on appeal.6In reviewing a trial court's determination that a statement is voluntary, we ask whether there is substantial evidence in the record from which the trial court could have found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statement was voluntary.7
There is substantial evidence, from Officer Rotton's testimony, that Koffie understood his Miranda rights, that he agreed to talk to the officer, and that he affirmatively indicated that all he was doing was exposing himself. We will not examine the trial court's determination that Koffie was not credible. There was no error in admitting Koffie's responses.
A defendant may invoke his right to remain silent after questioning begins but the invocation must be `clear and unequivocal'.8Koffie's `no comment' response, followed by a response to the next question, was not a clear and unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent.
Affirmed.
BAKER, ELLINGTON and BECKER, JJ.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩
- Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436,86 S. Ct. 1602,16 L. Ed. 2d 694(1966). ↩
- RP 31. ↩
- RP 90. ↩
- State v. Ross,106 Wn. App. 876,880,26 P.3d 298(2001). ↩
- State v. Hill,123 Wn.2d 641,644,870 P.2d 313(1994). ↩
- State v. Camarillo,115 Wn.2d 60,71,794 P.2d 850(1990); State v. Teshome,122 Wn. App. 705,715,94 P.3d 1004(2004), rev. den., P.3d (2005). ↩
- State v. Broadaway,133 Wn.2d 118,129,942 P.2d 363(1997). ↩
- State v. Hodges,118 Wn. App. 668,673,77 P.3d 375(2003), review denied,151 Wn.2d 1031(2004). ↩