State Of Washington, V. Brandon Robert Mitchal Wixon, 54395-8

Wixon was charged with first-degree assault (with firearm enhancement) and second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm after a shooting in Kelso; prosecution relied on two eyewitnesses and police testimony; no forensic evidence tied Wixon to the shooting.
Defense attacked eyewitness identification reliability and presented an expert (Dr. Reisberg) who criticized identification procedures but did not opine that the IDs were invalid.
After closing arguments, the jury deliberated roughly four hours and then informed the bailiff it was potentially deadlocked; the court recalled the jury and gave WPIC 4.70.
The court asked the foreperson a yes/no question about the reasonable probability of reaching a verdict; the foreperson answered “No.” The court then excused the jury, consulted counsel (defense moved for a mistrial without supporting reasons), and instructed the bailiff to send the jury back to continue deliberating “in an effort to reach a unanimous verdict.”
The jury subsequently returned a unanimous guilty verdict on both counts; Wixon was sentenced to 200 months confinement plus 36 months community custody and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court violated the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury by pressuring jurors after a reported deadlock	Wixon: sending jury back after foreperson said “no” coerced jurors into abandoning honest views and deprived him of a fair jury	State: no coercion shown; court acted within discretion given deliberation time, evidence volume, and use of WPIC; defendant offered no basis for mistrial	Court held no constitutional violation — under the totality of circumstances there was no reasonably substantial possibility the court’s instruction improperly influenced the verdict
Whether the court violated CrR 6.15(f)(2) by suggesting the need for agreement or consequences from nonagreement	Wixon: asking jury to continue to reach a unanimous verdict and reading WPIC suggested need for agreement and thus violated CrR 6.15(f)(2)	State: instruction merely asked jury to continue deliberating; it did not state consequences, require agreement, or impose a deliberation time	Court held no rule violation — instruction did not suggest need for agreement, consequences, or mandate a time period

State v. Jones, 97 Wn.2d 159 (1982) (trial judge must refrain from coercive pressure on jury deliberations)
State v. Boogaard, 90 Wn.2d 733 (1978) (courts must weigh deliberation length against evidence volume/complexity before discharging jury)
State v. Watkins, 99 Wn.2d 166 (1983) (defendant must show substantial possibility of improper influence to prevail on judicial-interference claim)
State v. Ford, 171 Wn.2d 185 (2011) (appellate review considers totality of circumstances in jury-interference claims)