State Of Washington, V Adrian Contreras-rebollar

i_ - ED
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION 11
20111 AUG - 5 AM 10: 37
STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OFslyASH J 4, ON
EPI. Y
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 40962 -3 -II
Respondent,
v.
ADRIAN CONTRERAS -REBOLLAR,
Appellant
IN RE PERSONAL RESTRAINT PETITION Consolidated with
OF No. 41672 -7 -II
ADRIAN CONTRERAS -
REBOLLAR,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Petitioner.
HUNT, J. — In this supplemental personal restraint petition ( PRP), on remand from the
Supreme Court, Adrian Contreras -Rebollar challenges his jury convictions for two counts of first
1
degree assault. He argues that ( 1) the trial court erred in admitting statements he made to the
arresting officer, ( 2) the State improperly commented on his right to remain silent, ( 3) he
received ineffective assistance when counsel failed to propose a jury instruction addressing his
statements to the arresting officer, ( 4) the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, and ( 5)
cumulative error deprived him of his right to a fair trial. We deny Contreras -Rebollar' s
supplemental PRP.
1 Contreras -Rebollar also pled guilty to one count of second degree unlawful possession of a
firearm, which conviction he does not challenge here.
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -II and 41672 -7 -II
I. FACTS
We set out the background facts in our first, unpublished decision in this case, excerpts of
which we provide here:
T] he evening [ of April 11, 2006], Contreras[ -Rebollar], [ Nicholas] Solis,
Regina] Hernandez, and [ Ahria] Kelly left their friend' s house and went to a
place described as " Wolfie' s alley," so Solis could pick up a vehicle. Report of
Proceedings ( RP) ( Jan. 23, 2007) at 254. Contreras[ -Rebollar] and Hernandez left
Wolfie' s alley to go drive around; Solis and Kelly followed in the car that Solis
had just retrieved. Hernandez alleged that Contreras[ -Rebollar] flagged Solis to
stop, got out of his vehicle, and argued with Solis about a " sack of dope" and a
Palm Pilot. RP ( Jan. 23, 2007) at 259. According to Hernandez, Contreras[ -
Rebollar] returned to his vehicle, said, "[ T] his mother f[ *]
cker is getting on my
nerves; I' m going to do him in[,]" and retrieved a gun from the backseat of the
car. RP ( Jan. 23, 2007) at 261. After going back to Wolfie' s alley, Contreras and
Hernandez subsequently drove to Yessica Rosas' s house. [ Hernandez later
claimed that, during their second visit to Wolfie' s alley, Solis, while wearing a
bandana over his face, pointed a gun at Contreras -Rebollar who responded by
firing shots in Solis' s direction].
Rosas and Hernandez were talking in Rosas' s bedroom when
Contreras[ -Rebollar] went outside to his car. Contreras[ -Rebollar] returned
wearing dark clothes and sunglasses, carrying a gun. Rosas testified that
Contreras[ -Rebollar] appeared nervous and looked like he was wearing a disguise.
Rosas' s father, Jose Rosas, heard people talking and he asked Hernandez and
Contreras[ -Rebollar] to leave. Jose testified that he watched Hernandez and
Contreras[ -Rebollar] drive away before returning to bed.
Contreras[ -Rebollar] sat in the driver' s seat and Hernandez sat in the front
passenger seat when they left Rosas' s house. Hernandez testified that she was
looking at CDs [( compact discs)] when she heard Contreras[ -Rebollar] say,
T] here those mother f[ *]
ckers are." RP ( Jan. 23, 2007) at 289. The two were
only a short distance from Rosas' s house when Contreras[ -Rebollar] started
shooting at the oncoming vehicle. After Contreras[ -Rebollar] finished shooting,
Hernandez heard him say, " I just dumped on those fools." RP ( Jan. 23, 2007) at
290. Hernandez testified that Contreras[ -Rebollar] did not appear afraid; instead,
he appeared brave, calm, and cool. Further, Hernandez testified that she had her
head down looking at CDs and did not see Solis' s vehicle approach; she looked
up after Contreras[ -Rebollar] started shooting and saw only the taillights of
Solis' s vehicle. Contreras[ -Rebollar], however, relayed a different story at trial.
Contreras[ -Rebollar] claimed that he saw Solis' s vehicle speed up and the
headlights turn off. He also claimed to see Solis wearing a bandana and raise the
barrel of a gun. Based on this information, Contreras[ -Rebollar] believed that
Solis was preparing to commit a by shooting. Contreras[ -Rebollar] testified
drive -
2
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -II and 41672 -7 -II
that he feared for his life, reached for his gun, ducked, and fired towards Solis' s
vehicle.
Solis was driving with Kelly in the passenger seat when Contreras[ -
Rebollar] shot at Kelly testified that he yelled "[ d] uck" when he saw the
them.
flash of a gun firing from the driver' s window of a parked vehicle with no
headlights. RP ( Jan. 24, 2007) at 501. Solis did not see Contreras[- Rebollar' s]
vehicle and only remembered seeing gunfire sparks at the time of the shooting.
One bullet struck Kelly in the shoulder and at least one bullet struck Solis. As a
result of the shooting, Solis is paralyzed from the chest down.
Shortly after the shooting, Kim Say -Ye was returning home when she saw
a vehicle parked on the grass in front of her neighbor' s house. The vehicle caught
her attention because she saw shattered glass and because both the windshield
wipers and headlights were on. She thought the driver was drunk and was about
to call the police when Officer Timothy Caber showed up.
Caber, who had received the dispatch call for the shooting around 1: 00
a. m., briefly spoke to Say -Ye when he arrived at the scene. Caber found the
vehicle still running and stopped against landscaping railroad ties on the lawn. He
also observed that the windshield wipers and headlights were on. Caber found
Solis inside, slumped over; a rifle lay wedged between the driver and passenger
seats with the barrel pointing toward the dash.
Edward Robinson, a firearm examiner at the Washington State Patrol
Crime Laboratory, determined that the gun was a black powder rifle. Robinson
received the rifle without a ram rod and without any wadding, projectiles, and gun
powder inside the rifle' s chamber or otherwise in a container associated with the
rifle. Solis testified that he traded dope for the rifle on the day of the shooting and
that he thought the rifle was inoperable.
On April 12, 2006, the police arrested Contreras[ -Rebollar] at a Motel 6.
The State charged him with two counts of first degree assault, with firearm
enhancements, and one count of second degree unlawful possession of a firearm.
Contreras pleaded guilty to second degree unlawful possession of a firearm.
Both parties focused on credibility throughout the trial [ on the two
assaults], as many of the witnesses were habitual methamphetamine users who
admitted to having a poor memory. On January 23, 2007, Hernandez testified that
she did not see the headlights on Solis' s vehicle. When the prosecution
questioned her, Hernandez acknowledged that her testimony conflicted with a
statement she made to police officers shortly after the shooting. However, she
claimed that [ one of Contreras- Rebollar' s counsel] had told her the headlights
were off. On direct, Hernandez denied that [ defense counsel] told her to say the
headlights were off, but on cross -examination she claimed he had. [ T] he jury
found Contreras[ -Rebollar] guilty on both counts of first degree assault and found
that he was armed with a firearm during the commission of both crimes.
3
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -I1 and 41672 -7 -I1
State v. Rebollar,
Contreras - noted at 149 Wn. App. 1001, 2009 WL 448902, at * 1 - 2 ( 2009)
some alternations in original) ( internal footnotes omitted).2
II. PROCEDURE
Contreras -Rebollar has previously filed two direct appeals. We resolved his first appeal
in an unpublished opinion in which we affirmed his convictions but remanded for resentencing.
Contreras -Rebollar, 2009 WL 448902, at * 1. Contreras -Rebollar appealed his resentencing—
his second appeal. He then filed a PRP, which we consolidated with his pending direct appeal
from his resentencing; and we granted his request to supplement his PRP.
In June 2012, in another unpublished opinion, we denied his original PRP as meritless
and his supplemental PRP as untimely; and we again remanded for resentencing. State v.
Contreras -
Rebollar, noted at 169 Wn. App. 1001, 2012 WL 2499369 ( 2012), review granted,
173 Wash. 2d 563 ( 2013). Rebollar
Contreras - petitioned the Supreme Court for review. The
Supreme Court granted the petition in part and remanded to us to consider Contreras- Rebollar' s
supplemental PRP on the merits. 3 State v. Contreras -Rebollar, 177 Wash. 2d 563, 564, 303 P.3d
1062 ( 2013). It is this supplemental PRP that we now consider.
2
We set out additional facts related to Contreras- Rebollar' s current arguments in the relevant
analysis sections.
3
The Supreme Court upheld our denial of his original PRP on the merits, remanding only his
supplemental PRP. State v. Contreras -
Rebollar, 177 Wash. 2d 563, 564, 303 P.3d 1062 ( 2013).
4
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 - II and 41672 -7 -II
ANALYSIS
I. PRP STANDARDS
Generally, to be entitled to relief on collateral review, a petitioner must establish " either
that he or she was actually and substantially prejudiced by constitutional error or that his or her
trial suffered from a fundamental defect of a nonconstitutional nature that inherently resulted in a
complete miscarriage of justice." In re Pers. Restraint ofFinstad, 177 Wash. 2d 501, 506, 301 P.3d
450 ( 2013). Contreras -Rebollar fails to sustain this burden here.
II. IN- CUSTODY STATEMENTS ADMISSIBLE
Miranda4
Contreras -Rebollar first contends that the trial court erred in admitting his pre-
statements to the arresting officer, asserting that they were not spontaneous and voluntary, and
5 6
instead were coerced. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review; Miranda
A trial court' s CrR 3. 5 findings of fact are verities on appeal if substantial evidence
supports the findings. State v. Broadaway, 133 Wash. 2d 118, 131, 942 P.2d 363 ( 1997). Evidence
4 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 ( 1966).
5 Contreras -Rebollar also contends that the trial court erred by failing to enter written findings of
fact supporting its CrR 3. 5 ruling. Although failure to enter findings of fact and conclusions of
law is error, such error is harmless if the trial court' s oral findings are sufficient to permit
appellate review. See State v. Johnson, 75 Wn. App. 692, 698 n. 3, 879 P.2d 984 ( 1994), review
denied, 126 Wash. 2d 1004 ( 1995). Such is the case here. Accordingly, we do not further address
this argument.
6
Contreras -Rebollar also appears to assert that the trial court erred when it found that he was not
in custody when he made these statements. Contreras -Rebollar is incorrect; the trial court
specifically found that Contreras -Rebollar was in custody when he made the statements.
Accordingly, we do not further address this issue.
5
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 - II and 41672 -7 -II
is substantial when it is sufficient to persuade a fair -
minded person of the truth of the stated
premise. State v. Reid, 98 Wn. App. 152, 156, 988 P.2d 1038 ( 1999) ( citing State v. Thetford,
109 Wash. 2d 392, 396, 745 P.2d 496 ( 1987)). " The legal conclusions flowing from the facts are
questions of law," which we review de novo. State v. Aronhalt, 99 Wash. App. 302, 307, 994 P.2d
248 ( citing State v. Armenta, 134 Wash. 2d 1, 9, 948 P.2d 1280 ( 1997)), review denied, 141 Wash. 2d
1012 ( 2000).
Under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, " Miranda warnings must
be given when a suspect endures ( 1) custodial ( 2) interrogation ( 3) by an agent of the State."
State v. Heritage, 152 Wash. 2d 210, 214, 95 P.3d 345 ( 2004). When these conditions exist, but the
state agent fails to advise the defendant of his Miranda rights, we presume that " a suspect' s
statements during custodial interrogation are ... involuntary" and that we must exclude these
statements. Heritage, 152 Wash. 2d at 214; State v. Warner, 125 Wash. 2d 876, 888, 889 P.2d 479
1995). Miranda does not, however, " apply to voluntary, spontaneous statements made outside
the context of custodial interrogation." State v. Sadler, 147 Wash. App. 97, 131, 193 P.3d 1108
2008) ( citing Miranda, 384 U.S. 478), review denied, 176 Wash. 2d 1032 ( 2013).
Only questions or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the
defendant can be characterized as equivalent to interrogation. State v. Wilson, 144 Wash. App.
166, 184, 181 P.3d 887 ( 2008) ( citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S. Ct. 1682,
64 L. Ed. 2d 297 ( 1980)); State v. Peerson, 62 Wn. App. 755, 773, 816 P.2d 43 ( 1991), review
denied, 118 Wash. 2d 1012 ( 1992). Generally, a statement is not the product of custodial
interrogation when it is spontaneous and unsolicited. State v. Ortiz, 104 Wash. 2d 479, 484, 706
P.2d 1069 ( 1985), cent. denied, 476 U.S. 1144 ( 1986). The determination of voluntariness is
6
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -II and 41672 -7 -II
made upon the totality of circumstances surrounding the interrogation. State v. Unga, 165
Wash. 2d 95, 100, 196 P.3d 645 ( 2008); State v. Aten, 130 Wash. 2d 640, 663 -64, 927 P.2d 210
1996).
B. CrR 3. 5 Hearing
When the State learned mid -
trial that Contreras -Rebollar was planning to testify, it
notified Contreras -Rebollar that it intended to cross -examine him about the statements he had
made to arresting officer Pierce County Police Detective Brian P. Vold. Defense counsel
requested a CrR 3. 5 hearing to determine the admissibility of these statements. Vold was the
only witness at the CrR 3. 5 hearing. The trial court also considered Vold' s earlier testimony in
the State' s case in chief.
Vold testified that he was assisting with the shooting investigation when he learned that
Hernandez was at a local Motel 6. Vold and other officers went to the motel hoping to locate the
vehicle that had been involved in the shooting. The officers were driving unmarked vehicles and
were not in uniform, but Vold was wearing a jacket that had a " flap pulled down identifying
him] as police." 6 Report of Proceedings ( RP) at 700. While investigating a vehicle similar to
the car involved in the shooting, Vold saw Hernandez walking across " an elevated sidewalk"
about 60 feet away. 6 RP at 701. When Hernandez noticed Vold, she appeared " startled," which
Vold believed was in response to the police markings on his jacket. 6 RP at 701. Vold " ordered
her to continue walking around the elevated sidewalk to the left side of the complex." 6 RP at
701.
As Hernandez continued to walk, Contreras -Rebollar " appeared from the same location
Hernandez] had appeared from." 6 RP at 702. Contreras- Rebollar seemed to be " conceal[ ing]"
7
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 - II and 41672 -7 -II
something " against his body "; when he saw Vold, he turned back to the room from which he had
emerged and then " reappeared from the same location," appearing empty handed. 6 RP at 703.
Vold pointed his firearm at Contreras -Rebollar and ordered him to come downstairs; Contreras -
Rebollar complied. Vold " placed" Contreras -Rebollar " on the ground" and handcuffed him. 7
RP at 885. Vold did not advise Contreras -
Rebollar of his Miranda rights at this point; and none
of the officers asked him any questions.
But Contreras -Rebollar spontaneously and " repeatedly ask[ ed] [ the officers] in various
ways what [ they] were doing and why [ they] were doing it." 7 RP at 886. According to Vold,
Contreras -Rebollar asked, " What' s going on? Why is this happening ?" and "[ t] hings to that
effect." 7 RP at 886. When Contreras -Rebollar commented that his family had an attorney,
Vold told him that it was "[ n] ot a problem," that he was " being detained," and that he ( Vold)
would " respect [ Rebollar' s]
Contreras - wishes." 7 RP at 886.
At the end of the CrR 3. 5 hearing, the trial court orally ruled that ( 1) Contreras -Rebollar
was in custody when he made his statements, but ( 2) Miranda did not apply because there was
no interrogation.
Here, there was no evidence that any officer attempted to solicit information from
Contreras -Rebollar when he spontaneously made his statements. Although the officers clearly
intended to take him into custody, that alone was not sufficient to show that their actions were
calculated to elicit a response from Contreras -Rebollar. Nor does the record show that his
statements were involuntary or " the product of coercion made under psychological duress while
being apprehended by an undercover officer." Suppl. PRP at 5. The record supports the trial
court' s factual findings and legal conclusions that these statements were voluntary, and not a
8
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -II and 41672 -7 -II
product of a custodial interrogation to which Miranda applied. Therefore, we uphold the trial
court' s admission of Contreras -Rebollar' s statements.
III. COMMENTS ON SILENCE
Contreras -Rebollar next contends that the State improperly commented on his
constitutional right to remain silent when it introduced the above statements as substantive
evidence of his guilt and repeatedly emphasized his failure to call the police. 8 These claims also
fail.
A. Contreras -Rebollar' s Cross -examination
On cross -examination at trial, the State asked Contreras -Rebollar whether he had called
the police after the shooting. Without objecting to this question, Contreras -Rebollar testified that
he had not called the police; and he confirmed that after the shooting, he took Hernandez to the
motel and they had sex.
The State also cross -examined Contreras -Rebollar about what he had told Vold during
the arrest:
When the police arrived and arrested you, when they called you down, what you
said to them was not, Hey, I was almost killed. What you said to them was:
What' s this all about; why are you doing this, why am I being arrested, correct?
7 In his reply, Contreras -Rebollar appears to argue, for the first time, that his statements were
inadmissible for evidentiary reasons and because he did not waive his Miranda rights. We do
not address issues raised for the first time in a responsive brief. RAP 10. 3( c); State v. Clark, 124
Wash. 2d 90, 95 -96 n. 2, 875 P.2d 613 ( 1994), overruled on other grounds by State v. Catlett, 133
Wash. 2d 355, 361, 945 P.2d 700 ( 1997).
8
Because these issues present potential manifest constitutional errors, we address them even
though Contreras -Rebollar did not object to all of this evidence below. See RAP 2. 5( a)( 3) ( " The
appellate court may refuse to review any claim of error which was not raised in the trial court."
Emphasis added)).
9
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -II and 41672 -7 -II
7 RP at 916. Again, Contreras -Rebollar did not object to this question. Instead, he responded
that when Vold ordered him to come downstairs, ( 1) he did not know who the officers were, ( 2)
he asked Vold who they were and what they were doing because they had not identified
themselves, and ( 3) he did not know they were police officers or that he was a suspect until after
he was on the ground. In rebuttal, the State recalled Vold, who testified that he had announced
directly to Contreras -Rebollar that they were police and that his ( Vold' s) jacket was clearly
marked.
B. State' s Closing Rebuttal Argument
In rebuttal closing, the State argued that in determining whether it had proved the intent
element of the charged assaults, the jury could consider what Contreras -Rebollar did after the
shooting, including his comments to the police during his arrest:
The last thing that I want to leave you with is the beyond a reasonable
19'
doubt and the assault 2 legal issue. This is not an assault 2, and you know it' s
not an assault 2 because it does, as I' ve said all along, the assault 1 is focused on
the defendant' s intent. It doesn' t matter the result; it matters the intent.
That " X" marks the spot defines his intent. That weapon defines his
intent. The number of shots he fired defines his intent. The fact that he was
sitting there in wait defines his intent. What he did afterwards defines his intent:
F[ * *] k off. If you tell the police what happened, just one phone call and the same
thing could happen to you, Regina.
Laying [ sic] on the ground being cuffed: What' s this all about? What' s
this all about? All of those things give you a clear picture, an accurate picture of
the defendant' s mindset, which is to kill or cause the significant, permanent harm
to Mr. Solis, what he actually did, ruthless.
8 RP at 1022 -23 ( emphasis added).
9 The trial court had instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of second degree assault.
10
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -II and 41672 -7 -II
Later, the State mentioned Contreras -
Rebollar' s failure to call the police after the Solis' s
alleged initial threat:
And when you use your common sense, when you analyze the minutia of
this case, please step back and look at the big picture. Don' t convict because you
believe that he' s in a gang, that kind of thing. That' s not at all what I' m saying,
but what I am saying is that these people are not acting reasonably and the
defendant doesn' t do what most people would do if somebody put a gun at them
and called the police, get away, protect their family and themselves in reasonable
ways. He goes after him, and that' s what he did.
8RPat1025.
C. No Prejudice
A comment on the right to remain silent occurs when evidence of the defendant' s silence
is used to the State' s advantage as either substantive evidence of guilt or to suggest to the jury
that the silence was an admission of guilt. State v. Lewis, 130 Wash. 2d 700, 707, 927 P.2d 235
1996). " The use of pre -arrest silence as substantive evidence of guilt implicates the Fifth
Amendment and is not merely an evidentiary issue." State v. Easter, 130 Wash. 2d 228, 235, 922
P.2d 1285 ( 1996). But the State may use a defendant' s prearrest silence to impeach the
defendant' s credibility if the defendant testifies at trial. State v. Burke, 163 Wash. 2d 204, 217, 181
P.3d 1 ( 2008).
Contreras -Rebollar does not persuade us that the State used his failure to call the police
as substantive evidence of his guilt. Rather, the record shows that Contreras -Rebollar testified at
trial and the State used this evidence on cross -examination to impeach his self defense claim,
-
which is permissible. See Burke, 163 Wash. 2d at 217.
In its rebuttal closing argument, however, the State argued that the jury could consider
Contreras- Rebollar' s failure to tell Vold that he ( Contreras -Rebollar) had acted in self -
defense as
11
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -II and 41672 -7 -II
evidence of his " intent, "10 substantive evidence of Contreras- Rebollar' s guilt; this was improper.
But this error does not warrant PRP relief unless Contreras -
Rebollar also establishes that this
comment resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to his case. Finstad, 177 Wash. 2d at 506.
Given the other evidence in this case, he fails to meet this burden. Even if the jury had not heard
about Contreras- Rebollar' s comments to Vold, there was other evidence of Contreras- Rebollar' s
intent, including his behavior ( as opposed to his comments) following the shooting— leaving the
scene, booking into a motel, and having sex with Hernandez, rather than contacting the police —
inconsistent defense.
with a claim of self - We hold, therefore, that Contreras -Rebollar is not
entitled to PRP relief on this ground.
IV. No INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Contreras -Rebollar next claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance"
WPIC12
when he failed to propose a jury instruction based on 6. 41 addressing the weight and
credibility of Contreras- Rebollar' s in- custody statements. 13 This claim also fails.
1°
8 RP at 1022.
11
The State argues that Contreras -
Rebollar cannot raise this ineffective assistance of counsel
claim in his supplemental PRP because he previously raised an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim in his direct appeal, which we have already addressed on the merits. Although Contreras -
Rebollar previously raised and we addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, see
Contreras- Rebollar, 2009 WL 448902, at * 7 -9, his current ineffective assistance of counsel
claim is premised on different grounds, the merits of which we have not previously addressed.
12
11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 6. 41, at
196 ( 3d ed. 2008) ( WPIC).
13In his reply, Contreras -Rebollar attempts to argue that he also received ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel when his appellate counsel failed to raise this argument in his earlier direct
appeal. Again, we will not address issues raised for the first time in a responsive brief. Clark,
124 Wash. 2d at 95 -96 n.2.
12
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -II and 41672 -7 -II
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Contreras -
Rebollar must show both
14
deficient performance and resulting prejudice. In re Pers. Restraint of Yates, 177 Wash. 2d 1, 35,
296 P.3d 872 ( 2013) ( citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 -88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80
L. Ed. 2d 674 ( 1984)). Contreras -Rebollar fails to establish deficient performance or prejudice.
A. No Deficient Performance
CrR 3. 5( d)( 1), ( 4) provides:
If the court rules that the statement is admissible, and it is offered in evidence: ( 1)
the defense may offer evidence or cross -examine the witnesses, with respect to
the statement without waiving an objection to the admissibility of the statement; .
4) if the defense raises the issue of voluntariness under subsection ( 1) above,
the jury shall be instructed that they may give such weight and credibility to the
confession in view of the surrounding circumstances, as they see fit.
Courts normally give a WPIC 6.41 instruction when the defendant challenges the voluntariness
of a statement. WPIC 6. 41 provides:
You may give such weight and credibility to any alleged out - - ourt statements
of c
of the defendant as you see fit, taking into consideration the surrounding
circumstances.
WPIC 6. 41, at 196. The accompanying note on use of this instruction states:
This instruction must be given upon request of a defendant when, after a CrR 3. 5
hearing, the trial court has ruled that an out of court statement is admissible and
the defense has raised the issue whether the out of court statement was voluntary
through the evidence offered or cross -examination of witnesses.
WPIC 6. 41, at 196.
14
Although this is a PRP, Contreras -Rebollar can establish ineffective assistance of counsel if he
meets the prejudice standard that applies to such claims when raised in a direct appeal. In re
Pers. Restraint of Crace, 174 Wash. 2d 835, 846 -47, 280 P.3d 1102 ( 2012) ( "[ I] f a personal
restraint petitioner makes a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim, he has necessarily
met his burden to show actual and substantial prejudice. ").
13
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -II and 41672 -7 -I1
Contreras -
Rebollar does not show that his trial counsel failed to offer this instruction; on
15
the contrary, the record shows that his counsel proposed this instruction. Accordingly, to the
extent Contreras -Rebollar predicates his deficient performance claim on failure to propose this
instruction, it fails.
B. No Prejudice
But even if we liberally construe Contreras -Rebollar' s challenge as asserting that his
counsel should not have acquiesced to the trial court' s characterization of his proposed
instruction as inapplicabile, Contreras -Rebollar still fails to establish the prejudice prong of the
ineffective assistance of counsel test. Despite his evidence about the circumstances under which
he made statements to Vold and his explanation at trial about why he did not tell Vold he had
acted in self -
defense, Contreras -Rebollar offered no evidence suggesting that his statements were
involuntary, the necessary trigger for giving WPIC 6. 41. Thus, even if defense counsel had
challenged the trial court' s initial comments about the instruction and insisted that the trial court
give it, it is unlikely the trial court would have allowed this instruction. Thus, Contreras-
Rebollar cannot show prejudice. His ineffective assistance claim fails.
15 The trial court acknowledged that defense counsel had proposed an instruction based on WPIC
6. 41. The State advised the trial court that this instruction was required only " if the defendant
contests a 3. 5 hearing as to whether or not the statements were voluntary." 7 RP at 948. The
trial court responded, " Does that really apply here? The only statements we have is, [`] Why are
you doing this.[']" 7 RP at 948. After the State asserted that it did not think the instruction was
appropriate, defense counsel agreed and withdrew the proposed instruction without further
argument.
14
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 - I1 and 41672 -7 -I1
V. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT CLAIMS
Contreras -Rebollar next contends that the State engaged in several instances of
prosecutorial misconduct during its cross -examination of him and in closing argument.
Contreras -Rebollar fails to show he is entitled to relief on this ground.
A. Standards
A defendant claiming prosecutorial misconduct must establish the impropriety of the
prosecutor' s comments and their prejudicial effect. State v. Brown, 132 Wash. 2d 529, 561, 940
P.2d 546 ( 1997), cent. denied, 523 U.S. 1007 ( 1998). If the defendant failed to object to any of
the prosecutor' s allegedly improper statements at trial, the defendant must show that the
prosecutor' s comments were " so flagrant and ill-intentioned that [ they] cause[ d] an enduring and
resulting prejudice that could not have been neutralized by a curative instruction to the jury."
Brown, 132 Wash. 2d at 561.
Because this is a PRP, however, Contreras -Rebollar must also satisfy the higher PRP
prejudice standards: He must establish " either that he . . . was actually and substantially
prejudiced by constitutional error or that his ... trial suffered from a fundamental defect of a
nonconstitutional nature that inherently resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice." Finstad,
177 Wash. 2d at 506. He fails to meet both standards.
B. Tailoring
Contreras -Rebollar argues that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during
cross- examination by asking whether he was tailoring his testimony to the evidence.
Specifically, he directs us to the following exchange during cross -examination immediately after
15
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 - II and 41672 -7 -II
Contreras -Rebollar testified about having seen Solis with a gun as he ( Contreras -Rebollar)
approached Solis' s car:
Q [ State]. You' re not having your testimony just conform to the
evidence, are you?
A [Contreras -Rebollar]. What do you mean?
Q. You didn' t just listen to this case and understand that [ Solis] had
his fingers of his left hand blown off?
A. No.
Q. Which would mean that there would be blood somewhere
probably, if it was touching the gun, correct?
A. I guess.
Q. You know where the gun was found, with the stock in the back
seat, the barrel to the front, and he was leaning on it with his hands in his lap,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And my question is: Aren' t you just trying to use the testimony,
use the evidence, and create a story?
A. No, sir.
7 RP at 922 -23. Our Supreme Court has expressly allowed the State, in response to the
defendant' s testimony on direct, to cross -examine a testifying defendant about possible tailoring.
State v. Martin, 171 Wash. 2d 521, 535 -36, 252 P.3d 872 ( 2011). The cross -examination approved
in Martin is what occurred here; it was not misconduct.
C. Confrontation
Contreras -Rebollar next argues that the State improperly commented on his right to
confront witnesses against him by suggesting in closing argument that Contreras- Rebollar' s self -
defense claim was a " fabrication," as demonstrated by the inconsistencies between the evidence
he offered and other testimony: Suppl. PRP at 20. He directs us to the following portions of the
State' s closing and rebuttal arguments:
This is not a case of self -
defense. This was an ambush, and to suggest that
this is self -
defense is misplaced. Self defense in this case is nothing more than a
-
creation of the defense after the facts, after understanding what the State' s
16
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -II and 41672 -7 -II
evidence is, and coming up with some explanation in an attempt to sell to you that
the defendant acted in self -
defense.
8 RP at 977 ( emphasis added).
The same with Yessica [ Rosas]. And then what else did Yessica say?
And I want to point out something else as well. The defendant' s testimony differs
from every single other witness, people that were in these cars, Yessica, people
that were there. His testimony differs from every other person. And why?
Because it the only way he has a chance of convincing you that it' s self defense.
-
He' s trying to create a doubt. That' s the desperation that he has, to hope that
you' ll be naive enough to believe that anything he says has to be believed or
creates enough of an issue that you won' t be able to convict him.
8 RP at 988 ( emphasis added).
So the defendant' s story is nothing more, as I've said, than an attempt to
convince you after the facts that you should have a doubt in this case. And
fortunate for him, [ Solis] had an inoperable weapon between the seats or he has
no case at all. That' s what he centered his case on, and he crafted this " if you
ever come back to the East Side, I' ll kill He' s crafted the lights being out.
you."
He' s crafted, clearly, the situation that it occurred seeing him down the road in
this dark place, seeing the car, seeing the stock of a weapon, and seeing it as he
rounds the corner as the driver, and within a split second, let' s say less than five
seconds, certainly, not only has his passenger identified this person and said who
he is, screams several times " there he is ", for him to do something , do something,
but he' s been able to roll down his window, he' s been able to retrieve his weapon
from under his seat, get it ready, and by the time [ Solis] comes all the way to here
without shooting, he fires on him. It didn' t happen. This is an ambush.
8 RP at 993 -94 ( emphasis added).
With all due respect, reiterating the defendant' s crafted self -
defense claim,
it is nothing more than that. It' s just reiterating what the defendant tried to sell
you, and you know that the defendant is not credible for several reasons.
8 RP at 1012.
Also, driving with [Hernandez] to two friends' homes, remember, this is a
long, convoluted story that the defendant gives about where he was and why he
was different places. The defendant didn' t actually answer the question asked.
He had a story ready to give and he was going to get it all out. And he told you
that there were two friends, two people that could corroborate what he had to say,
Eric, and I believe the other person' s name was Shawna or something like that.
17
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -II and 41672 -7 -II
8 RP at 1014 -15 ( emphasis added). Contreras -Rebollar did not object to any of this argument.
Contreras -
Rebollar appears to claim that the State made the above arguments in an
attempt to infringe on his right to confront witnesses; this claim, however, is essentially an
objection to the State' s pointing out that the evidence did not support Contreras- Rebollar' s
defense. " It is not misconduct ... for a prosecutor to argue that the evidence does not support
the defense theory." State v. Russell, 125 Wash. 2d 24, 87, 882 P.2d 747 ( 1994), cert. denied, 514
U.S. 1129 ( 1995). Thus, this claim also fails.
D. Prosecutor' s Personal Belief
Prosecutors may not " state their personal beliefs about the defendant' s guilt or innocence
or the credibility of the witnesses." State v. Dhaliwal, 150 Wash. 2d 559, 577 -78, 79 P.3d 432
2003) ( citing State v. Reed, 102 Wash. 2d 140, 145, 684 P.2d 699 ( 1984)). But such was not the
case here.
1. Defendant' s credibility
Citing the same portions of the record set out above, Contreras -Rebollar also appears to
contend that the State' s allegations Rebollar had " fabricat[ ed]"
that Contreras - his self defense
-
claim was tantamount to the State' s improperly expressing its personal belief about his
credibility. Suppl. PRP at 20. This claim fails.
Even presuming, without deciding, that the prosecutor' s comments suggested such a
personal belief, these closing argument statements were not so flagrant and ill-intentioned that
any potential prejudice could not have been cured Rebollar
had Contreras - objected. Moreover,
1) taken in context, the jury could have understood these remarks to address whether Contreras -
Rebollar' s self-defense claim was reasonable in light of all of the evidence; and ( 2) the trial court
18
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 - II and 41672 -7 -II
had instructed the jury that it was the " sole judge ... of the credibility of each witness," and we
presume that the jury followed the court' s instructions. State v. Foster, 135 Wash. 2d 441, 472, 957
P.2d 712 ( 1998); State' s Response, App. G ( Jury Instruction 1). Because Contreras -Rebollar
fails to show that an objection and proper instruction would not have cured any potential
prejudice or that this argument was prejudicial in light of the other jury instructions, he is not
entitled to relief on this ground.
2. Witnesses
Contreras -Rebollar further contends that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct
by vouching for and expressing personal belief about certain witnesses' credibility. Contreras -
Rebollar cites the following portions of the record:
What he did was nothing more than search out [ Solis] and shoot him
down, gun him down. And I'm going to tell you right now that the most important
witnessto this situation is Jose [( Rosas' s father)], and I'll tell you why.
Now, the next thing I want to do is, again, move to the evidence which
supports that this is an ambush. I' m going to put back in front of you one of
several keys to this case, and that' s this diagram. .. .
I' ll get right to the most important factor from the beginning, and that is
Jose Rosas. What did Jose tell you and what motivation does Jose have to tell you
anything but the truth.
Jose told you that at one point he got up and told the defendant to leave
and Regina to leave. He watched them get up, he watched them go to the car, and
he didn' t leave the door frame and go back to his bed. He watched them drive
down the street until they took a left turn to leave.
Then and only then did he go
back to his room, get back in his bed, and try to get back to sleep, and it' s only
then that he hears gunfire.
You will have to say either to be polite, he' s mistaken, or that he' s lying
about that in order to believe the defendant. Because what did the defendant say?
The defendant said he immediately left and as he was rounding this corner, he
saw Smiley, [ Solis'] s car, and Regina started screaming. He reached for his gun,
rolled his window down, and started shooting.
Somebody is not telling the truth. It could not have happened both ways.
Other issues that are just as important that support Mr. Rosas' s statement about
what happened, first of all, the time period in which he gave that statement was
19
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 - II and 41672 -7 -1I
right as officers got there he gave a statement to them immediately. So did
Yessica. And Yessica also says that she saw her dad make them leave.
8 RP at 981 -83 ( emphasis added).
The physical scene supports everything that was said by Ahria [ Kelly],
and Ahria is the only one apparently who remembers. Either that or [ Solis] is not
willing to talk about it for whatever reason. But Ahria has no motive to say
anything other than what happened. He said in the hospital that he was afraid of
what would happen if he told in the ` hood.
He was afraid of being a snitch. But
in court, and I apologize for using this language, but I think it' s expressive; it' s
how he represented his motive for talking, he just said: F[* *]k it; I'm going just
going to tell the truth. And he did. By all accounts, based on the physical scene,
it appears that he' s telling the truth.
8 RP at 986 ( emphasis added).
Although some of the above comments arguably reflect the prosecutor' s personal belief
about a witness' s credibility, as we have previously discussed, any prejudicial impact of these
comments could have been cured by a timely objection from Contreras -Rebollar and curative
instruction by the trial court. But Contreras -Rebollar did not object to any of this argument that
he now challenges for the first time. Nor does he show that the comments were flagrant and ill -
intentioned. Furthermore, again we note that the trial court instructed the jury that it was the sole
judge of credibility; and nothing in the record suggests that the jury did not follow this
instruction. Foster, 135 Wash. 2d at 472. Thus, Contreras -Rebollar is not entitled to relief on this
ground.
E. Facts outside the Record
Contreras -Rebollar also appears to assert that several portions of the State' s closing
argument were not supported by the record. 16 Even if this were the case, again we note that the
16
Specifically, Contreras -Rebollar cites the following portions of the record:
20
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 - II and 41672 -7 -1I
trial court instructed the jury that the State' s argument was not evidence and that it (the jury)
must disregard any statement or argument not supported by the record. Again, we presume the
jury follows the trial court' s instructions. Foster, 135 Wash. 2d at 472. Thus, this claim also fails.
VI. CUMULATIVE ERROR
Finally, Contreras -Rebollar asserts that cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial.
Again, we disagree.
Even if each error standing alone would otherwise be considered harmless, cumulative
error may warrant reversal when the errors combined denied the defendant a fair trial. State v.
Jose told you that at one point he got up and told the defendant to leave
and Regina to leave. He watched them get up, he watched them go to the car, and
he didn' t leave the door frame and go back to his bed. He watched them drive
down the they
street until took a left turn to leave.
Then and only then did he go
back to his room, get back in his bed, and try to get back to sleep, and it' s only
then that he hears gunfire.
8RPat983.
What other significant value does that reaction and that statement have? It
proves that the defendant is not telling the truth, is not credible on .the stand,
because what did he say on the stand under oath? That she brought the issue of
Smiley to his attention as they were rounding that corner, that she did that.
And there' s another example right there of a big material contrast between
what the other person in the car said happened and what the defendant does. And
what does Regina have to lose or gain by telling you anything other than the
truth? What does the defendant have to lose or gain by telling you anything other
than the truth.
8 RP at 1017.
Then, finally, the defense says time is relative. I mean, come on. Jose and
Yessica don' t have much to add to this case. It' s just a few seconds. Well, first
of all, that' s not testimony. It wasn' t a few seconds, it was minutes. It was,
their
went back to bed, trying to get to bed. It was Jose watching the car and take the
turn, then he went to bed, and then, after a period of time, he heard the gunfire.
It was Yessica saying she watched her dad escort them out and watched
her dad till he closed the door and then she went and closed her door, got back in
bed and was laying there for a period of time before she heard the gunfire.
8 RP at 1021.
21
Consolidated Nos. 40962 -3 -II and 41672 -7 -II
Weber, 159 Wash. 2d 252, 279, 149 P.3d 646 ( 2006), cent. denied, 551 US. 1137 ( 2007). The
defendant, however, bears the burden of proving an accumulation of error of such magnitude that
retrial is necessary. State v. Yarbrough, 151 Wn. App. 66, 98, 210 P.3d 1029 ( 2009). Contreras -
Rebollar fails to carry this burden.
Even presuming, without deciding, that ( 1) the State improperly used Contreras -
Rebollar' s statements to the arresting officers as substantive evidence, ( 2) portions of the State' s
argument may have suggested personal belief as to Contreras- Rebollar' s guilt or some of the
witnesses' credibility, and ( 3) portions of the State' s argument were not supported by the record,
in light of the other evidence and the jury instructions in this case, Contreras -Rebollar does not
show that these errors cumulatively deprived him of a fair trial. Accordingly, he is not entitled to
relief on this ground.
We deny this petition.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2. 06. 040, it is so ordered.
We concur:
22