State of Washington v. Carrie Lee Aenk, 34035-0

Carrie and Allan Aenk operate Shepherd's Way Animal Rescue and negotiated sales of three horses (Duke, Quinn, Baron) to Elle and Dustin Hatfield in July–August 2013; $500 nonrefundable fee was paid for Duke and $2,500 in cash was delivered as partial payment for Quinn and Baron.
Hatfields expected delivery after payments; Aenks retained possession, delayed delivery, made threats, and attempted to cash/post-date checks; Hatfields concluded Aenks would not deliver the horses.
State charged Carrie Aenk with attempted second-degree theft (value ≥ $2,500) for Quinn/Baron and third-degree theft (≤ $750) for Duke.
At trial, defense sought to elicit from Allan Aenk hearsay statements the Hatfields made to him about delivery timing; the court excluded that testimony as hearsay.
Jury convicted Carrie Aenk of both counts; defendant moved for new trial on hearsay exclusion and raised several additional grounds on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Aenk)	Held
1. Admissibility of Allan Aenk’s testimony recounting Hatfields’ statements	Testimony was hearsay and properly excluded	Exclusion denied defense relevant evidence; statements showed agreement/timing and effect on listener	Exclusion was proper — statements were hearsay; no abuse of discretion
2. Right to present a defense (constitutional challenge)	Trial court’s evidentiary ruling did not violate the Sixth Amendment	Hearsay exclusion impeded Aenk’s right to present defense and warrants de novo review	No constitutional violation; exclusion of inadmissible evidence permissible
3. Sufficiency of evidence for "deception" element of third‑degree theft (Duke)	Evidence supported jury’s finding of deception and intent to deprive	Argued lack of intent to deceive; claimed legitimate reasons for delays	Sufficient evidence existed to support conviction; jury could infer deception
4. Award of appellate costs to State	State sought costs as prevailing party	Aenk asserted indigency and requested denial of costs	Court denied appellate costs due to defendant’s continued indigency

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (constitutional right to present a defense is fundamental but not unlimited)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (defendant has no right to present incompetent or otherwise inadmissible evidence)
State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713 (2010) (discusses de novo review when Sixth Amendment right to present a defense is asserted)
State v. Aguirre, 168 Wn.2d 350 (2010) (scope of right to present a defense does not extend to admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence)
State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24 (1994) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)