State Of Washington, Res. V. Pierce Dubois Aka Alfonso, App.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
PIERCE ALFONSO DUBOIS,
Appellant.
No. 68275-0-1
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	JUL " 8 2013
Per Curiam—Pierce DuBois appeals his convictions for second degree
murder and first degree unlawful possession of a firearm. 	He contends that the
court's "to convict" instructions misstated the law by telling the jury, "Ifyou find
from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty." According
to DuBois, the court should have instructed the jury that it "may" convict because
there is no "duty to convict" under federal and Washington state law.
We rejected the same argument in State v. Megqyesv, 90 Wn. App. 693,
958P.2d 319. review denied, 136Wn.2d 1028 (1998). abrogated on other 	\ o
qrounds by State v. Recuenco, 154Wn.2d 156, 110 P.3d 188(2005). OurcourtsF 	«2_
have adhered to Megqyesv and the Washington Supreme Court has repeatedly j> 	dp;
denied review. 	See, State v. Bonisisio. 92 Wn. App. 783, 793-94, 964 P.2d 1222 c?
ro
T.C:
(1998), review denied, 137Wn.2d 1024 (1999): State v. Brown, 130 Wn. App

No. 68275-0-1/2
767, 770-71, 124 P.3d 663 (2005). 	DuBois offers no persuasive basis for
departing from our holding in Meggyesy.
In a pro se statement of additional grounds, DuBois argues that his
statements to police were inadmissible because he did not waive his rights
during the interrogation. 	"Under Miranda v. Arizona,™ a confession is voluntary,
and therefore admissible, if made after the defendant has been advised
concerning rights and the defendant then knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently
waives those rights." Statev.Aten. 130Wn.2d 640, 663, 927 P.2d 210 (1996).
Voluntariness of a confession is determined by the totality of the circumstances
under which it was made. Aten, 130 Wn.2d at 663-64. 	Denial of a suppression
motion is reviewed by independently evaluating the record to determine whether
substantial evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the
conclusions. 	State v. Cunningham, 116 Wn. App. 219, 226, 65 P.3d 325 (2003)
(citing State v. Broadaway, 133 Wn.2d 118, 130, 942 P.2d 363 (1997)). We
review legal conclusions de novo. 	State v. Johnson, 128 Wn.2d 431, 443, 909
P.2d 293 (1996).
DuBois' claim focuses on the statements he made to the detectives at
police headquarters.2 All ofthese statements were made after DuBois had been
informed of his rights. Initially, officers at the scene of the arrest issued the
Miranda warning. 	A patrol car video captured the advisement and
acknowledgement of those rights. 	Two officers testified that DuBois did not
1384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
2 DuBois made several statements at the scene of his arrest that were admitted at trial,
but he appears to dispute only the statements made to detectives at police headquarters.

No. 68275-0-1/3
invoke his right to silence or his right to an attorney at any time during their
contact with him.
After officers transported DuBois to police headquarters, a detective asked
if he had been read his rights. 	DuBois said he received and understood them.
During this session, DuBois did not invoke his right to silence or request an
attorney. 	When homicide detectives arrived, they again advised DuBois of his
rights before interrogating him. DuBois also received a written explanation of his
rights and acknowledged that he understood them. 	This exchange was captured
on video. 	DuBois spoke with detectives and answered questions until he
decided to invoke his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney.
The trial court determined that DuBois' statements to police were "the
product of custodial interrogation, but were made knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily after a full advisement of Miranda warnings." 	The trial court's
conclusions are amply supported by evidence in the record. The statements
DuBois made before the exercise of his rights were properly admitted.
Affirmed.
For the court:
A. ,4, 	c