An incredibly long decision by an unanimous Washington Supreme Court covers incredibly sad and dark facts about the circumstances surrounding two 16-year-old girls in a fight that got deadly. Lola Felipa Luna got into a knife fight with another 16-year-old girl (‘S.P.T.’) she had never met. They “knew” each other through social media. S.P.T. arrived outside Luna’s home one fateful afternoon. They argued and S.P.T. started a physical fight by punching Luna. Luna wielded a pocketknife, which she “often carried” for protection. She stabbed S.P.T. multiple times while S.P.T. continued to punch her. S.P.T. punched Luna 38 times; Luna stabbed S.P.T. 27 times. The fight lasted less than a minute, captured by their friends on cell phone video. S.P.T. later died of her injuries after being airlifted to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.
Luna was tried as an adult. At trial, the State showed the jury social media by Luna and her police interrogation. They argued she had a fixation on stabbing and showed no remorse toward S.P.T. Luna argued self defense and offered other social media (much of which was not allowed into evidence) to demonstrate her belief S.P.T. was threatening her with gang violence. A jury found Luna guilty of Murder in the Second Degree (intentional, not premeditated).
For a variety of reasons, the Washington Supreme Court overturned Luna’s conviction – unanimously. It was evident to this court that a proper understanding of young people and the power of social media were not present. Although 4 judges’ concurrence desired that the reversal to be on broader grounds.
The 5 person majority found the Juvenile Access to an Attorney Law (“JAL”), RCW 13.40.740, did not apply retroactively (as it became law after Luna’s incident). The 4 person concurrence would have recognized that it was appropriate to apply. In any event, the overall ruling held Luna’s Miranda rights waiver was not knowing and voluntary because the totality of the circumstance showed Luna lacked full awareness of the nature of her rights and the consequences of waiving them. Those circumstances included: her age, lack of prior Miranda warnings, and that she received dozens of head blows making her dizzy and lightheaded. Most importantly, Luna said after the police interview she did not fully understand her Miranda warnings or how to ask for an attorney. She thought, as many 16 year olds would, that she had to do what the police said to do. The concurring opinion appears to key in on this point to allow retroactive application of the JAL.
Additionally, the trial court demonstrated little appreciation of the power of social media on teenagers: causing Luna to be impermissibly prevented from thoroughly presenting her defense. For instance, the court excluded an image sent by an unknown third party claiming a “green light” (i.e. a gang hit) on Luna with text that S.P.T. had a whole gang ready to “take Luna out”. The trial court wrongly held such media could not be tied to S.P.T. and was hearsay. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was admissible, as it was not offered to show the truth of the matter asserted, but to demonstrate Luna’s fear before the altercation, thereby explaining her reasoning for arming herself and reacting in self defense.
Although it was split 5-4 about the retroactivity of the JLA, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the combination of other errors required vacating Luna’s conviction and remanding to the trial court. Even without retroactive application, a juvenile’s age must be considered when evaluating the validity of a Miranda waiver.