State v. Rosas-Miranda

25 Citing cases

  1. State v. Khan

    1 Wn. App. 2d 1020 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017)

    Thus, when determining the admissibility of a defendant's statements, a trial court must first ascertain whether the defendant was in custody for purposes of Miranda. See State v. Rosas-Miranda, 176 Wn.App. 773, 779, 309 P.3d 728 (2013). "'Custody' for Miranda purposes is narrowly circumscribed and requires 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.'"

  2. State v. Cone

    No. 56525-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. May. 31, 2023)

    "We review challenged findings of fact entered after a CrR 3.5 hearing for substantial evidence and review de novo whether the trial court's conclusions of law are supported by its findings of fact."State v. Rosas-Miranda, 176 Wn.App. 773, 779, 309 P.3d 728 (2013). Consequently, we review the trial court's determination of whether a suspect was in custody for purposes of Miranda de novo. Id.

  3. State v. Streiff

    No. 54170-0-II (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2021)

    When reviewing a CrR 3.5 ruling, we review challenged findings of fact for substantial evidence and consider de novo whether the conclusions of law are supported by the findings of fact. State v. Rosas-Miranda, 176 Wn.App. 773, 779, 309 P.3d 728 (2013). "'Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the finding.'"

  4. State v. Threatts

    No. 52279-9-II (Wash. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2020)

    There have been cases similar to this one where we held that a defendant was not in custody either in their home or in a hotel room. See State v. Rosas-Miranda, 176 Wn.App. 773, 309 P.3d 728 (2013); State v. Smith, 154 Wn.App. 695, 226 P.3d 195 (2010). In Rosas-Miranda, we held that the defendant was not in custody.

  5. State v. E.E.

    No. 51668-3-II (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2020)

    "A suspect is in custody for purposes of Miranda when 'a reasonable person in a suspect's position would have felt that his or her freedom was curtailed to the degree associated with a formal arrest.'" State v. Rosas-Miranda, 176 Wn.App. 773, 779, 309 P.3d 728 (2013) (quoting Heritage, 152 Wn.2d at 218). The conclusion that a suspect is not "in custody" for Miranda purposes is a conclusion of law.

  6. State v. George

    No. 46323-7-II (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2016)

    the trial court's conclusions of law are supported by its findings of fact. State v. Rosas-Miranda, 176 Wn.App. 773, 779, 309 P.3d 728 (2013). Unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal.

  7. State v. B.J.C.

    No. 45833-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2015)

    We review a trial court's determination whether a defendant was in custody de novo as a question of law. State v. Rosas-Miranda, 176 Wn.App. 773, 779, 309 P.3d 728 (2013).

  8. State v. Payne

    No. 32096-1-III (Wash. Ct. App. Jul. 28, 2015)

    We review challenged CrR 3.5 findings of fact for substantial evidence. State v. Rosas-Miranda, 176 Wn.App. 773, 730-31, 309 P.3d 728 (2013).

  9. State v. Wolter

    No. 45041-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. May. 27, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    We review challenged findings of fact entered after the trial court's CrR 3.5 hearing for substantial evidence. State v. Rosas-Miranda, 176 Wn.App. 773, 779, 309 P.3d 728 (2013). Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to "persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the finding."

  10. State v. Gonzales

    No. 44433-0-II (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2014)

    We review the decision to deny a motion to suppress by determining whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether those findings support the conclusions of law. State v. Rosas-Miranda, 176 Wn.App. 773, 779, 309 P.3d 728 (2013); State v. Ross, 106 Wn.App. 876, 880, 26 P.3d 298 (2001), review denied, 145 Wn.2d 1016 (2002). Where the findings are not challenged, we treat them as verities on appeal and review the conclusions of law de novo.