State v. Wasuge

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court considers whether testimony from a forensic toxicologist concerning impairment and a 0.05 percent blood alcohol concentration threshold was improperly admitted and, if so, whether the error was harmless. The court also addresses whether race and ethnicity may be considered in determining custody for Miranda purposes. The opinion concludes that any evidentiary error was harmless and that Wasuge was not in custody when he made the statements at issue.

Holdings

1. Even assuming that the toxicologist's testimony about the AMA's 0.05 percent BAC recommendation was improperly admitted and constituted either constitutional or nonconstitutional error, the error was harmless.
2. Wasuge was not in custody for Miranda purposes when he answered questions about whether he had been drinking and why he was asleep in his vehicle.
3. Courts may consider relevant and objective evidence concerning race and ethnicity as factors in the totality-of-the-circumstances test for determining Miranda custody.

Questions Presented

1. Whether admission of the State toxicologist's testimony about impairment and BAC levels was improper and, if so, whether the error was harmless.
2. Whether Wasuge was in custody for Miranda purposes when he answered the deputy's questions about alcohol consumption and why he was sleeping in his vehicle.
3. Whether race and ethnicity may be considered as relevant and objective factors in the totality-of-the-circumstances custody analysis for Miranda purposes.

Disposition

affirmed