State Of Washington, Resp-cross App v. Kevin E. Ingalls, Appellant-cross
73720-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Trooper James Ramey observed a Ford Taurus driving erratically on the freeway, activated his emergency lights, and the vehicle failed to stop.
- The driver accelerated (over 100 mph at one point), clipped a vehicle, exited, ran a red light at ~90 mph, and reentered the freeway; the trooper terminated pursuit for safety.
- Ingalls was charged with and convicted by a jury of attempting to elude a police vehicle (RCW 46.61.024(1)).
- At trial the trooper testified and—after pursuit—accessed Department of Licensing (DOL) records; the trial court allowed testimony about the trooper’s procedural steps in accessing DOL records but struck testimony identifying the defendant from the DOL photo.
- Ingalls did not testify. He raised on appeal claims of prosecutorial misconduct (closing argument), inadequate response to a jury question about the struck DOL evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficiency of evidence, alleged vindictive prosecution, and other ancillary claims.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting claims as waived, unsupported, or lacking prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ingalls) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct for commenting on struck DOL evidence, shifting burden, and commenting on silence | Remarks about trooper looking at a photo and observing/identifying support reliance on the trooper’s testimony and were permissible argument about the evidence presented | Prosecutor referenced excluded DOL identification, shifted burden by calling testimony "unrefuted," and impermissibly commented on silence | No misconduct: references to procedural steps were allowed; statement that evidence was "unrefuted" did not shift burden or impermissibly comment on silence; error waived absent flagrant prejudice |
| Response to jury question about what part of trooper’s procedure could be considered | Court’s brief reply directing jury to prior instructions was sufficient; no substantive DOL identification remained for the jury to misuse | Court should have repeated limiting instruction specifying that only procedural steps were admissible | No abuse of discretion: supplemental answer not prejudicial because only procedural testimony was in the record and no substantive excluded evidence could have been considered |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (alleged misallocation of investigation to competency vs. alibi) | Counsel reasonably pursued competency evaluation as a prudent strategic choice | Counsel spent excessive time on competency and failed to develop an alibi, producing deficient performance and prejudice | Claim rejected: counsel’s strategy was reasonable, and defendant did not rebut presumption of effective assistance |
| Sufficiency of evidence; vindictive prosecution; juror replacement/mistrial | State argued trooper’s live testimony sufficed to prove elements; no evidence of prosecutorial vindictiveness; replacing a juror with an alternate was permissible | Vehicle was never found; conviction unsupported; prosecution vindictive for withdrawing plea offer; mistrial required after excusing juror (race-related harm) | Evidence sufficient without recovering the vehicle; no showing of vindictiveness; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying mistrial after seating alternate juror |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51 (1991) (prosecutor has wide latitude in closing argument to draw reasonable inferences)
- State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (2012) (defendant bears burden to show prosecutor’s misconduct was improper and prejudicial)
- State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438 (2011) (error is waived absent flagrant, ill-intentioned, noncurable misconduct)
- State v. Jackson, 150 Wn. App. 877 (2009) (prosecutor may comment on strength of State’s evidence and lack of defense evidence without shifting burden)
- State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759 (2007) (impermissible comment on defendant’s silence occurs when silence is used as evidence of guilt)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (1992) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)