State Of Washington, V Charles E. Paschal, 47379-8

Background

On March 16–17, 2013, Katherine Martin escaped Paschal’s home naked after an hours‑long assault; she reported being punched, choked, held captive, and sexually assaulted. Medical personnel documented extensive facial injuries and signs consistent with strangulation.
Paschal was charged with attempted first‑degree murder, first‑degree assault, first‑degree rape, unlawful imprisonment, two counts of second‑degree assault, and other counts; the jury convicted him of first‑degree assault, first‑degree rape, unlawful imprisonment, and two second‑degree assaults (the latter merged), and acquitted him of attempted murder.
The State introduced evidence of uncharged 2010 domestic violence incidents involving the same victim; the trial court admitted that evidence and gave a limiting instruction permitting consideration only for assessing the victim’s credibility and her actions on the charged date.
The trial judge sentenced Paschal to 360 months, imposed restitution and mandatory and discretionary LFOs, and made a generalized finding about Paschal’s future ability to pay based on trial testimony.
On appeal Paschal challenged (inter alia) admission of prior‑acts evidence under ER 404(b), certain jury instructions, ineffective assistance for failure to object to hearsay/opinion testimony, merger/double jeopardy, and imposition of discretionary LFOs without an individualized Blazina inquiry.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Paschal)	Held
Admission of 2010 domestic‑violence evidence under ER 404(b)	Evidence admissible to assess victim credibility and to rebut self‑defense, explain state of mind, and explain why victim did not leave	Admission improperly used to show propensity/credibility in light of Gunderson and Ashley	Trial court erred to the extent evidence was admitted to assess credibility; error harmless as to assault and unlawful imprisonment but not harmless as to rape — rape conviction reversed
Limiting instruction re: prior incident (judicial comment)	Instruction simply limited jury use of evidence	Instruction improperly comments on evidence by assuming 2010 incident occurred	Not improper; instruction not an unconstitutional judicial comment
Reasonable doubt instruction	Instruction reasonable; focuses jury on weighing evidence	Misstated burden by saying doubt must have a reason/explainable doubt	Instruction upheld (court relied on precedent rejecting challenge)
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to hearsay and opinion testimony	Testimony admissible (excited utterance, medical‑treatment exceptions) and objections likely futile; no prejudice	Counsel deficient for not objecting to hearsay, opinion, and inflammatory testimony	No ineffective assistance: testimony fell within hearsay exceptions or was cumulative; no reasonable probability of different outcome for assault and unlawful imprisonment convictions
Sentencing: discretionary LFOs without individualized inquiry	LFOs appropriate based on trial testimony of income	Judge failed to make Blazina‑required individualized inquiry into present/future ability to pay, especially given incarceration	Error: discretionary LFOs vacated and remanded for individualized Blazina inquiry
Merger / double jeopardy / same criminal conduct	State contended merger not required for remaining convictions	Paschal argued assault/false imprisonments merged with rape and that same criminal conduct applied	Moot as to rape after reversal; court declined to decide further (remanded for resentencing)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Baker, 162 Wn. App. 468, 259 P.3d 270 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (framework for admitting other‑acts evidence under ER 404(b))
State v. Gunderson, 181 Wn.2d 916, 337 P.3d 1090 (Wash. 2014) (limits on admitting prior domestic‑violence incidents to assess victim credibility)
State v. Ashley, 186 Wn.2d 32, 375 P.3d 673 (Wash. 2016) (prior acts cannot be admitted to assess credibility when victim’s story is consistent and not recanted)
State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 269 P.3d 207 (Wash. 2012) (harmless‑error standard for evidentiary errors)
State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 725 P.2d 951 (Wash. 1986) (harmless error test applied to evidentiary errors)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827, 344 P.3d 680 (Wash. 2015) (court must make individualized inquiry into defendant’s present and future ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs)
State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11, 74 P.3d 119 (Wash. 2003) (substantial burden on the State to admit other‑acts evidence)
State v. Wade, 98 Wn. App. 328, 989 P.2d 576 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (trial court must identify purpose and balance probative vs. prejudicial value on the record)
State v. Young, 160 Wn.2d 799, 161 P.3d 967 (Wash. 2007) (standards for admitting excited utterance hearsay exception)