State of Washington v. Amy Sue Brown, 506 P.3d 1258

Background

Amy Brown shot and killed Amanda Hill after a night of heavy drinking; Brown admitted the shooting and claimed self-defense at trial.
Physical and blood-spatter evidence conflicted with Brown’s account that Hill was strangling or straddling her when shot.
The State used six of seven peremptory strikes to remove female jurors; final jury was majority male.
Brown was convicted of second-degree (felony) murder; she appealed raising ineffective-assistance claims about jury-selection and jury instructions, plus evidentiary and prosecutorial-misconduct claims.
Key contested issues: whether Jefferson/GR 37’s modified Batson standard should apply to gender-based strikes (and whether counsel was ineffective for not arguing it), whether defense-proposed self-defense instructions lowered the State’s burden, admission of an “in-life” photo of the victim with her child, prosecutor’s use of a slide captioned “Murdered” and other closing remarks, and cumulative error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Peremptory strikes / gender bias & counsel effectiveness	Jefferson/GR 37’s modified Batson (objective-observer test) should apply to gender strikes; counsel ineffective for not raising it	GR 37 and Jefferson explicitly address race/ethnicity; extending them to gender is a novel legal argument; counsel not required to advance novel theory	Counsel not constitutionally deficient for failing to raise Jefferson; court applied traditional Batson and did not clearly err in accepting gender-neutral reasons for six strikes
Self-defense jury instructions / counsel effectiveness	Instructions (WPIC) improperly conflated subsections of RCW 9A.16.050, potentially lowering State’s burden for disproving self-defense	WPIC instructions mirror Washington law; Brightman requires deadly force to be reasonably necessary (i.e., threat to life/great bodily harm)	Counsel not ineffective; unmodified WPIC instructions accurately reflected Brightman and the law
Admission of in-life photo of victim with child	Photo was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, and designed to provoke emotion (sexist/chivalry appeal)	In-life photos are relevant to identity and, amid many autopsy/scene photos and testimony about children, not unduly prejudicial	Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting the photo; relevance and probative value outweighed prejudice
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (slide caption “Murdered”, calling defense a “claim”, “stupidity”)	Use of captioned slide and certain remarks appealed to emotion, shifted burden, and were prejudicial	Slide was briefly displayed; remarks paraphrased defendant’s own language; objections were untimely or not made; conduct was not pervasive like Glasmann	Most misconduct claims unpreserved; brief use of captioned slide was not so flagrant or pervasive to require reversal under the record
Cumulative error	Multiple errors together deprived Brown of a fair trial	Errors were minimal/insufficient individually	No cumulative error; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (establishes three-step test for race-based peremptory strikes)
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (applies Batson principles to gender-based peremptory strikes)
State v. Jefferson, 192 Wn.2d 225 (Wash. 2018) (modifies Batson’s third step adopting GR 37’s objective-observer test for race/ethnicity)
State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506 (Wash. 2005) (deadly force must be reasonably necessary; governs interpretation of RCW 9A.16.050(2))
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the federal ineffective-assistance standard)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (Wash. 1995) (applies ineffective-assistance framework in Washington)
State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792 (Wash. 1999) (in-life photos admissible to establish identity; trial court discretion)
State v. Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d 696 (Wash. 2012) (captioning/altering exhibits during closing can constitute flagrant prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570 (Wash. 1995) (gruesome photos have been upheld where probative value supports admission)