Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Morales

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 5, 2010No. 36941-9-IIPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBridgewater, J.

¶61 (concurring in part, dissenting in part) — Jose Matilde Morales appeals his vehicular assault and driving under the influence convictions. I would hold that Morales’s vehicular assault conviction, on the basis of either driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or driving in a reckless manner, cannot stand. Specifically, the State failed to prove that it advised Morales in Spanish of the special evidentiary warnings required by RCW 46.20.308(2); thus the trial court should not have admitted the results of his involuntary blood test. But I would affirm Morales’s vehicular assault…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. State v. CamarilloWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State v. DelmarterWashington Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State v. RayWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  5. State v. RempelWashington Supreme Court · 1990

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API