State Of Washington v. Charles Christopher Langston, 74315-5

Police responded to a reported cell-phone theft at an AT&T store and contacted suspects in a nearby casino; Langston was one of the suspects.
Langston gave officers another man’s name (Eddie Robinson), Robinson’s date of birth, and Robinson’s Social Security card; casino records later produced Langston’s true ID and he was arrested on outstanding warrants.
After Miranda warnings, Langston admitted he had found Robinson’s wallet on a bus and used Robinson’s identity to avoid arrest; he also admitted involvement in the separate cell-phone theft investigation.
The State charged Langston with second-degree identity theft and second-degree theft (of the wallet).
Pretrial, Langston moved to exclude references to uncharged wrongdoing under ER 404(b); the trial court allowed officers to say they investigated a theft but admitted Langston’s statement admitting involvement in the cell-phone theft based on a prior CrR 3.5 ruling that the statement was voluntary.
At trial officers testified about the theft investigation; the jury convicted Langston of both counts. On appeal he challenged admission of his statement about the separate theft and asserted ER 404(b) error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Langston’s admission about involvement in another theft (ER 404(b))	State: statement was voluntary and res gestae so admissible to show context and that officers acted in official capacity	Langston: statement was inadmissible other-bad-act evidence under ER 404(b); CrR 3.5 admissibility does not resolve ER 404(b) analysis	Court: trial court abused discretion by treating CrR 3.5 voluntariness ruling as sufficient for ER 404(b) admissibility; the admission was not res gestae and was irrelevant to identity-theft elements
Harmless error as to convictions	State: any error harmless because other evidence supported convictions	Langston: admission likely prejudiced theft conviction and undermined his credibility	Court: error was harmless for second-degree identity theft (Langston’s own testimony admitted elements) but not harmless for second-degree theft; theft conviction vacated and remanded for new trial

State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825 (1995) (ER 404(b) two-part test and res gestae principles)
State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244 (1995) (standing objection after in limine ruling)
State v. Viney, 52 Wn. App. 507 (1988) (CrR 3.5 voluntariness determination is distinct from Rules of Evidence admissibility)
State v. Fedorov, 181 Wn. App. 187 (2014) (elements required for conviction under RCW 9.35.020(1))
State v. Gower, 179 Wn.2d 851 (2014) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional evidentiary error)