State Of Washington v. Autumn Rene Sinrud, 75052-6

Background

Police executed a search warrant at Autumn Sinrud’s residence; officers heard flushing and saw Sinrud leaving the bathroom area. 49.2 grams of heroin were found in the toilet and ~14 grams of methamphetamine in a lockbox beside the toilet.
No drugs were found on Sinrud’s person; officers found $3,800 cash, small plastic baggies, and a scale in her bedroom. Other controlled substances were found in roommates’ rooms.
Sinrud was charged with possession of controlled substances (heroin and meth) and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (meth). A jury convicted her on both counts.
On appeal Sinrud argued (1) insufficiency of evidence under the law-of-the-case doctrine because jury instructions required proof of knowing possession, (2) the trial court impermissibly commented on the evidence via jury instruction 18 (regarding intent to deliver), and (3) additional claims in a SAG (witness exclusion, reliability, and discovery violations).
The Court of Appeals concluded the evidence was sufficient to prove Sinrud knowingly possessed heroin and meth, but that jury instruction 18 amounted to an improper judicial comment on the evidence as to intent to deliver; it reversed and remanded for a new trial on the intent-to-deliver charge and affirmed the possession conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence (knowledge element under law of the case)	Sinrud: evidence insufficient to prove she knew the identity of the substances (knowledge element imposed by unobjected-to jury instructions).	State: evidence (roommate’s testimony, paraphernalia, scale, baggies, large cash, location of drugs) permits inference Sinrud knew the substances.	Court: Evidence sufficient for knowing possession of heroin and meth.
Jury instruction (instruction 18 on intent to deliver)	Sinrud: instruction impermissibly commented on the evidence by implying a single corroborating factor necessarily satisfies the required "substantial corroborating evidence" for intent to deliver.	State: instruction reflected case law; any error was harmless.	Court: Instruction conflated appellate sufficiency standards with jury burden and was a judicial comment on the evidence; error not harmless. Reversed and remanded for new trial on intent-to-deliver count.
Double jeopardy / merger of convictions	Sinrud: argued convictions may violate double jeopardy / should merge.	State conceded merger in sentencing memorandum but judgment unclear.	Court noted confusion in record but proceeded assuming no merger; did not vacate possession conviction on that ground.
Sag claims (in-limine violation, witness presence, discovery photograph)	Sinrud: prosecutor violated in limine by referencing a warrant targeting Sinrud’s home; trial court erred by not excusing a witness during sidebar; prosecutor failed to disclose a photo.	State: objections not preserved; statements/questions did not identify a target; defense counsel expressly accepted photo.	Court: All three arguments waived for failure to object at trial; possession conviction affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 (1998) (unchallenged jury instructions become law of the case and impose burdens on the State).
State v. Brush, 183 Wn.2d 550 (2015) (appellate sufficiency findings cannot be reshaped into jury-law instructions; courts must declare law, not resolve contested facts).
State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561 (2001) (an instruction that accurately states law is not a forbidden comment on the evidence).
State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709 (2006) (judicial comments on the evidence are presumed prejudicial; prejudice must be affirmatively negated to be harmless).
State v. Onq, 88 Wn. App. 572 (1997) (insufficiency where defendant lacked basis to know the substance's identity).
State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216 (1980) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence).