State v. Piatnitsky

Citation282 P.3d 1184
Decision Date20 August 2012
Docket NumberNo. 66442–5–I.,66442–5–I.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
PartiesSTATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Samuel M. PIATNITSKY, Appellant.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Lila Silverstein, Washington Appellate Project, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.

Randi Austell, King County Pros. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

DWYER, J.

¶ 1 Samuel Piatnitsky appeals from the judgment entered on a jury's verdicts finding him guilty of murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree, possessing a stolen firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree. He contends that the trial court erroneously admitted his inculpatory written statement given to the investigating detectives after his arrest. Before the written statement was taken, Piatnitsky was informed of his rights, indicated to the detectives that he understood his rights, and then voluntarily waived those rights. Nevertheless, Piatnitsky asserts that, prior to giving the written statement, he unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent, thus rendering the statement inadmissible at trial. Because the trial court properly found that Piatnitsky did not do so, we affirm.

I

¶ 2 On October 18, 2008, Nicole Crosswhite hosted a barbeque at her Renton townhouse, where she lived with her six year-old daughter, her roommate Kendra Bonn, and Bonn's two young children. Most of the guests left the barbeque by around 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. Only Crosswhite, her sister Ashley Leonard, Bonn, Jeff Manchester, and the children remained at the townhouse. Later that night, Crosswhite's friend, Shawn Jones, called to ask if she wanted to go with him to a casino. Although Crosswhite was getting ready for bed, she agreed to accompany him. Crosswhite left her home to pick up Jones at his house at around midnight. When she left, Leonard, Bonn, and Manchester were watching television, and the children were in bed.

¶ 3 When Crosswhite and Jones returned around 2:00 a.m., Crosswhite immediately heard loud music coming from the townhouse. In addition to Leonard, Bonn, and Manchester, there were two people in her home, both of whom Crosswhite did not know—Samuel Piatnitsky and Jason Young. Crosswhite soon learned that Piatnitsky and Young had been at the bus stop in front of her home when she left to pick up Jones. Manchester was a friend of Young's brother and had invited Piatnitsky and Young into Crosswhite's home. Although there had been no beer in the home when Crosswhite left, everyone was drinking when she returned. Because she was uncomfortable having two people in her home whom she did not know, Crosswhite told Jones to ask Piatnitsky and Young to leave.

¶ 4 Jones and Manchester asked Piatnitsky and Young to leave. Piatnitsky replied to the effect of “I will leave when I am ready.” A physical altercation thereafter ensued outside of the townhouse. Jones became involved in the fight after Crosswhite asked him to go outside to stop the altercation. Crosswhite saw Jones punching Piatnitsky and observed Manchester kick Young. Then another man, Mike Boyd, who had shown up at the townhouse just before the fighting ensued, broke a beer bottle over Piatnitsky's head. Piatnitsky and Young fled.

¶ 5 Less than an hour later, they returned. Crosswhite and the others were standing on the front porch when Piatnitsky emerged from the bushes in front of the townhouse with a shotgun. Piatnitsky said, “You guys want some now; what's up now, guys; what's up?” Jones attempted to wrestle the gun away from Piatnitsky, while Piatnitsky and Young punched Jones. Manchester had fled indoors but returned outside to help Jones when he learned that Jones was fighting Piatnitsky and Young. While Manchester fought Young, Jones attempted to gain control of the gun. But when Jones was tossed to the ground and lost his grip on the shotgun, Piatnitsky shot and killed him. Piatnitsky then pointed the shotgun at Manchester, who was on the front porch of the townhouse. Piatnitsky shot Manchester twice, shattering his wrist and breaking his arm in three places.

¶ 6 Police responded to the scene, where the witnesses provided descriptions and the first names of the suspects. They gave the police Young's coat, which he had left behind. A K–9 unit then tracked Young's scent to the house where Young, his brother, and his parents lived. Officers found Piatnitsky in the house, hiding in a closet behind a washing machine. Police then transported three of the witnesses to the house, where they each identified Piatnitsky as the shooter and Young as his accomplice. After obtaining a search warrant for the Young residence, police found a shotgun that had been stolen from a car parked 10 blocks away. Forensic testing later demonstrated that the shotgun shells recovered from the scene of the crime had been fired from that shotgun.

¶ 7 Following their arrests, Piatnitsky and Young were transported to the Maple Valley precinct, where Detectives David Keller and James Allen interviewed the suspects. Prior to arriving at the precinct, Piatnitsky was advised of his Miranda1 rights by one of the deputies who had responded to the scene of the incident.2 The detectives first attempted to interview Young, but they ceased questioning him shortly thereafter when Young requested an attorney.

¶ 8 The detectives then interviewed Piatnitsky, beginning at 7:10 a.m. on the morning of October 19. Piatnitsky first put his head on the table in the interview room and told the detectives that he wanted to sleep. Detective Allen then got him a soda, which “seemed to help him a little bit to talk.” Piatnitsky told the detectives that he understood the rights that had been read to him earlier that morning. Then, as a ruse, the detectives told Piatnitsky that Young had given them a statement. Piatnitsky replied that they should let Young go and that he, Piatnitsky, would take the blame. During this “rapport building” portion of the interview, Piatnitsky indicated to the detectives that he wanted to convey his version of the events, in his own words, and that he was willing to give an audio-recorded statement.

¶ 9 At 8:10 a.m., the detectives began an audio-recorded interview of Piatnitsky. At the beginning of the interview, Detective Keller asked Piatnitsky if he recalled being advised of his Miranda rights earlier that morning by another officer and whether he understood those rights. Piatnitsky replied, “I have a right to remain silent.... That's the, that's the only one I remember.... That's the one I, I should be doing right now.” Detective Keller reminded Piatnitsky, “Well, you know, like we told you, you don't have to talk to us.”

¶ 10 Detective Keller then began to read to Piatnitsky his Miranda rights. Piatnitsky said, “I'm not ready to do this, man.” Detective Allen replied, “You just told us that you wanted to get it in your own words on tape. You asked us to turn the tape on, remember?” Piatnitsky responded, “I just write it down, man. I can't do this. I, I, I just write, man. I don't, I don't want ... I don't want to talk right now, man.” Detective Keller said, “Okay, but let's go over the rights on tape, and then you can write it down, okay.” Piatnitsky replied, “All right, man.” Detective Keller then read to Piatnitsky each of his Miranda rights and asked Piatnitsky if he understood each of those rights. Piatnitsky replied in the affirmative.

¶ 11 Detective Keller then stated:

Okay. I'm gonna give you the form. I just read you these rights. You read ‘em earlier. Why don't you sign that you understand these rights right here. And I understand that you don't want to, you don't want to talk about this on tape, and that's your right too, so we'll take a written statement from you; but I want, I want to go ahead and read the waiver of the rights that you're gonna sign here in a second. You understand that you, you've either had read or you have [had] read to you the above explanation of rights and that you understand them. You've decided not to exercise these rights at this time. The following statement is made freely and voluntary and without threats or promises of any kind. Do you understand that? If you understand, you're willing to talk to us, sign that, and then we'll take a, I'll turn the tape off, and um, I'll, we'll write down a statement.

Detective Allen then asked Piatnitsky, “Are you sure you don't want to do it on tape like you said you did; you want to get [it] in your own words?” Piatnitsky replied, “Yes, sir.” Detective Keller said, “So you'd rather take a written statement, do a written one.” Piatnitsky replied, but his reply was mumbled. In the transcript of the audio-recorded interview, his reply was transcribed as “Yes. I don't know (unintelligible).” Detective Keller then stated, “Okay, it's too hard to talk about; you'd rather write it.” The detectives turned off the audiotape at 8:15 a.m.

¶ 12 Piatnitsky signed the waiver of constitutional rights form that Detective Keller read to him during the audio-recorded interview. After the audiotape was turned off, Piatnitsky provided the detectives with a written statement, in which he admitted to shooting both victims with a stolen shotgun. Both detectives asked Piatnitsky questions, and Detective Allen handwrote those statements that Piatnitsky indicated that he wanted to be included in the account. Detective Allen wrote only those statements that Piatnitsky specifically requested to be written. Piatnitsky looked at the statement several times during the questioning, read the completed statement, and indicated changes to be made, which he thereafter initialed.3 In addition, Piatnitsky drew a map for the detectives, depicting the school where the shotgun had been hidden prior to the crime.

¶ 13 The interview ended when the detectives attempted to question Piatnitsky regarding the fact that he was hiding in a closet behind a washing machine when he was discovered by police. Piatnitsky became upset with Detective Keller and told the detectives that ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • State v. Hurn
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 2015
    ...of his or her rights would create an unacceptable hindrance to effective law enforcement. Davis, 512 U.S. at 461.State v. Piatnitsky, 170 Wn. App. 195, 214, 282 P.3d 1184 (2012), aff'd, 180 Wn.2d 407 (2014). Thus, the question before us is whether, as a matter of law, it was reasonable for ......
  • State v. O'Neal
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 2013
    ...a written statement without an attorney present did not bar police from continuing with oral questioning); State v. Piatnitsky, 170 Wash.App. 195, 282 P.3d 1184, 1198–1200 (2012)(suspect did not unequivocally invoke right to remain silent where he stated that he was unwilling to give an aud......
  • Vernon v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • October 3, 2016
    ...v. O'Neal, 392 S.W.3d 556, 570 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013); State v. Davis, 471 N.E.2d 818, 821 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984); State v. Piatnitsky, 282 P.3d 1184, 1199, 1200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012), aff'd, 325 P.3d 167 (Wash. 2014). 11. The court's rulings did not prevent defense counsel from stating in closi......
  • State v. Piatnitsky
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • May 8, 2014
    ...trial court should have suppressed his statements because he had successfully invoked his right to silence. State v. Piatnitsky, 170 Wash.App. 195, 210–11, 282 P.3d 1184 (2012). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a split-panel decision. We granted review on the suppression iss......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT