statement found to be spontaneous where defendant, prior to his arrest and confinement, gave it in response to a question outside of “ ‘coercive atmosphere of official interrogation’ ”
How later courts described this case
- statement found to be spontaneous where defendant, prior to his arrest and confinement, gave it in response to a question outside of “ ‘coercive atmosphere of official interrogation’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by State v. Dent, 123 Wash. 2d 467 (1994)
See Whelchel, 115 Wn.2d at 722-25; State v. Mitchell, 117 Wn.2d 521, 529, 817 P.2d 398 (1991), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dent, 123 Wn.2d 467, 485, 869 P.2d 392 (1994).
The opinion
*540 Andersen, J.
(concurring) — I concur with the majority but, with respect to the claims of manifest instructional error affecting constitutional rights, would add as follows.
Such claims may be made for the first time on appeal. RAP 2.5(a)(3). All such claims relating to the instructions given in this case, however, are predicated on the factual proposition that both defendants were not directly and actively involved in the murder. The evidence is otherwise.
The evidence showed that the two defendants were together before, during and after the murder. Together, they watched the victim open his wallet with cash in it at the store and then together followed him approximately two blocks and attacked him. When the victim broke loose and ran, both of them ran after him. Then, while one defendant (Mitchell) stabbed the victim, the other (Hankerson) held and beat him while wearing brass knuckles. Afterward, both defendants went together to a residence where they washed the victim's blood off their shoes.
There is on that basis, therefore, no reversible constitutional instructional error. See, e.g., Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 95 L. Ed. 2d 127 , 107 S. Ct. 1676 (1987).
Brachtenbach, Durham, and Guy, JJ., concur with Andersen, J.