State of Washington v. Anthony Albert Joseph, 33422-8

On Oct. 12, 2014, Kittitas County corrections officer Laura Mittleider denied inmate Anthony Joseph a pencil during rounds; Joseph reacted angrily, threatened to kill her, spat, and grabbed her left arm through the cell door.
Joseph was charged with custodial assault; he denied grabbing Mittleider's arm at trial.
The State sought to admit prior misconduct evidence that Joseph had been denied pencils earlier after threatening another officer; the trial court initially denied some of that proposed evidence but later permitted limited testimony by Officer Contreras about Joseph’s angry, threatening demeanor the day before (without eliciting specifics about the basis for the denial).
Officer Contreras testified that Joseph was angry and made threats the prior day; Contreras also corroborated that Mittleider sought assistance and had a red mark on her wrist after the incident.
The jury convicted Joseph; he appealed, arguing (1) improper admission of prior-act evidence under ER 404(b) and (2) prosecutorial burden-shifting in closing argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Joseph)	Held
Admissibility of prior-act evidence under ER 404(b)	The prior angry/threatening encounter with Contreras was relevant to Joseph's intent to assault Mittleider.	The evidence was used impermissibly to show bad character and propensity to assault when denied pencils.	Admission was not an abuse of discretion: evidence relevant to intent; probative value outweighed prejudice.
Prosecutorial burden-shifting in closing argument	N/A (State argued elements 2–4 were not disputed, drawing reasonable inferences).	Closing suggested defendant bore burden to prove elements, shifting burden of production.	No misconduct: prosecutor only observed certain elements were undisputed; jury instructions made burden rests with State.

State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529 (discretionary review standard for admitting misconduct evidence)
State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244 (ER 404(b) admissibility for intent and requirements for prior-act evidence)
State v. Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630 (trial court must identify purpose, relevance, necessity, and balance probative vs. prejudicial)
State v. Billups, 62 Wn. App. 122 (defendant’s denial of acts can put intent at issue)
State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51 (prosecutor’s latitude in closing; limits on arguing defendant’s failure to produce evidence)
State v. Boehning, 127 Wn. App. 511 (prosecutorial argument improperly shifting burden of production can require reversal)
State v. Saltarelli, 98 Wn.2d 358 (prior misconduct admissible when intent is at issue)
State v. Joseph Carleton, 82 Wn. App. 680 (failure to perform on-record balancing may be harmless if reviewing court can determine admission was proper)