State Of Washington v. Dante Urell Piggee, 74824-6

Police stopped Dante Piggee in Seattle; he gave another person’s driver's license and was arrested for driving with a revoked license.
During a search incident to arrest, officers found multiple plastic bags containing heroin on Piggee’s person.
The State charged Piggee with possession of a controlled substance (heroin), driving with a suspended or revoked license, and identity theft.
In opening statement the prosecutor characterized the heroin as “not just a small amount, not just a user amount, it's about 50 grams,” prompting a defense motion for mistrial (transcript contains a typographical error showing 350 grams).
The trial court denied the mistrial, instructed the State not to elicit witness opinions about amounts indicating personal use versus distribution, but allowed witnesses to describe packaging and amounts actually seized.
The jury convicted Piggee of possession and driving with a revoked license; Piggee appealed the denial of the mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecutor’s opening remark about the quantity of heroin constituted prosecutorial misconduct warranting a mistrial	Piggee: The prosecutor’s comment implied an uncharged, more serious offense (possession with intent to deliver) and was unduly prejudicial	State: The comment was a permissible characterization of quantity, not an inflammatory appeal or an assertion of uncharged crimes; limiting instruction cured any risk	Court: Denied abuse of discretion. Comment was not comparable to cases of inflammatory appeals or imputations of other crimes; no substantial likelihood the remark affected the verdict

State v. O'Donnell, 191 Wash. 511, 71 P.2d 571 (1937) (reversal where prosecutor’s opening emphasized defendants’ uncharged crimes and invited conviction for offenses not charged)
State v. Magers, 164 Wn.2d 174, 189 P.3d 126 (2008) (discusses prosecutorial misconduct standard and prejudice inquiry)
State v. Campbell, 103 Wn.2d 1, 691 P.2d 929 (1984) (limits on inflammatory argument and proper scope of opening statements)
State v. Kroll, 87 Wn.2d 829, 558 P.2d 173 (1976) (addresses improper appeals to passion and prejudice in closing and opening arguments)