State Of Washington v. Bryan M. Hallmeyer, 76034-3

At ~11:00 p.m. police found Lyle Lippel’s car stopped in the road with the engine running; Hallmeyer and Lippel were outside appearing to switch places. Officer searched the car with Lippel's consent and found heroin, methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, two loaded handguns, an AR-15, ammunition, and a bulletproof vest. Both were arrested.
Hallmeyer was tried for possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute; he argued the drugs belonged to Lippel and that he did not know they were in the car. He admitted ownership of one handgun and claimed he carried it for protection.
Hallmeyer sought to introduce Lippel’s statements to the arresting officer (including an alleged remark "I'm done" when asked about the drugs) as evidence corroborating Hallmeyer’s defense.
Trial counsel announced he would not call Lippel because Lippel was hostile to the defense; counsel alternatively sought to admit Lippel’s statements as a hearsay exception (statement against penal interest) or as non-hearsay.
The trial court excluded Lippel’s statements as hearsay. The jury acquitted Hallmeyer of intent-to-deliver but convicted him of the lesser included offense of simple possession. Hallmeyer appealed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not calling Lippel and for failing to secure admission of Lippel’s statements.

Issue	Hallmeyer’s Argument	State / Counsel’s Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to call Lippel was deficient performance (ineffective assistance)	Counsel should have called Lippel; if Lippel refused to testify he would be unavailable and his statements could be admitted under ER 804(b)(3), or if he testified he could be cross-examined to support the defense	Counsel made a strategic choice not to call Lippel because Lippel was hostile to the defense; not calling a hostile witness is a legitimate trial tactic	Not deficient. Trial strategy is presumed reasonable; counsel’s choice was a legitimate tactic and therefore not ineffective assistance
Whether Hallmeyer showed prejudice from counsel’s alleged evidentiary errors regarding Lippel’s statements	Admission of Lippel’s statements would have corroborated Hallmeyer and likely changed the outcome	No showing that counsel’s evidentiary approach was unreasonable or that exclusion caused prejudice beyond the ordinary; alternative theories were pursued	No reversible prejudice found tied to counsel’s tactical decision; conviction affirmed

Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (establishes ineffective-assistance framework and strong presumption of reasonable performance)
Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856 (legitimate trial tactics are not deficient performance)
Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222 (ineffective assistance prejudice prong cited)
Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126 (defense conduct must be explainable by some conceivable legitimate tactic to avoid deficiency finding)