State Of Washington, Respondent/cr-appellant V. Jorge Nava Martinez, Jr., Appellant/cr-respondent, 80947-4

Background:

On Feb. 20, 2018, Tye Burley was robbed and shot in the head at a Marysville hotel; he died two days later. Jorge Nava Martinez Jr., his brother Jose Nava, Jeremy Dailey, and Jared Evans were implicated.
Dailey and Evans later pleaded to reduced charges in exchange for truthful testimony at the joint trial against Nava Martinez Jr. and Nava; Nava did not testify, Nava Martinez Jr. did.
Witnesses placed Nava Martinez Jr. at the scene; police found Nava Martinez Jr.’s DNA on the Durango’s steering wheel and interior driver controls and Nava’s DNA on the gearshift; the recovered bullet was .38 caliber; Beston’s missing .38 Beretta was discussed.
Trial resulted in conviction for first‑degree murder with a firearm enhancement; court imposed 434 months (offender score 4) and a $100 DNA collection fee; defendant appealed.
Appellant challenged multiple trial rulings (voir dire, mistrial for prison references, prosecutorial vouching, evidentiary rulings, confrontation clause, cumulative error) and sentencing errors (offender score proof and DNA fee).

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Nava Martinez Jr.)	Held
Voir dire on accomplice liability	Hypotheticals were proper to probe jurors’ state of mind	Questions minimized burden and indoctrinated jurors	Court: no abuse; questioning was general and permissible
Mistrial for witnesses’ references to prior prison	Remarks were fleeting; curative instruction sufficient	References to prison unfairly suggested criminal propensity; mistrial required	Court: denied mistrial; instruction to disregard presumed followed
Prosecutorial vouching for cooperating witnesses	Eliciting plea/truth‑testimony agreements was permissible rehabilitation after defense attack	Prosecutor improperly vouched and bolstered witness credibility	Court: no misconduct; State could “pull the sting” of expected impeachment
Admission of evidence about access to Beston’s firearm	Evidence tied to missing .38 Beretta and witness descriptions; probative of who shot Burley	Evidence of unrelated weapon was unduly prejudicial and should be excluded	Court: admissible; probative despite competing evidence
Admission of evidence that Dailey was coerced to call defendants’ mother	Relevant to rebut defense use of the call as voluntary exoneration	No proof connecting threats to defendants; inadmissible bolstering	Court: admissible rebuttal; relevant to Dailey’s state of mind regardless of source
Use of Nava’s (co‑defendant) statements at trial / Confrontation	Redactions and careful elicitation prevented Bruton error; prosecutor did not urge jurors to use Nava’s statements against Nava Martinez Jr.	Use of Nava’s statements effectively impeached Nava Martinez Jr. and violated Confrontation clause	Court: no confrontation violation; redaction and presentation were proper and not used to impeach improperly
Cumulative error	N/A	Combined errors denied fair trial	Court: no cumulative error; individual rulings not reversible
Offender score proof	State relied on summary/database affidavit and presentencing memo to establish priors	State failed to produce certified judgments to show a prior conviction did not wash out	Court: State failed burden; sentence reversed and remanded for resentencing
DNA collection fee	State argues record unclear whether DNA previously collected	Prior judgment ordered DNA collection, so fee discretionary and should be stricken given indigence	Court: fee ordered in error to be stricken on remand (court had found defendant indigent)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Robinson, 75 Wn.2d 230 (Wash. 1969) (trial court has broad discretion over voir dire)
State v. Davis, 141 Wn.2d 798 (Wash. 2000) (voir dire scope reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668 (Wash. 1997) (mistrial review and prosecutorial misconduct standards)
State v. Weber, 99 Wn.2d 158 (Wash. 1983) (factors for granting mistrial and prejudice analysis)
State v. Ish, 170 Wn.2d 189 (Wash. 2010) (improper vouching and who assesses witness truth)
State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566 (Wash. 1984) (rehabilitation by admitting plea agreements when credibility attacked)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (limits on admitting nontestifying codefendant confessions)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (redaction can cure Bruton problem; prosecutor may not urge jury to link confessions)
State v. Cate, 194 Wn.2d 909 (Wash. 2019) (state summary of criminal history insufficient to meet burden of proof)
State v. Freeburg, 105 Wn. App. 492 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (evidence of unrelated weapons may be unfairly prejudicial)