State of Washington v. David A. Mason-Daley, 34352-9

Defendant David Mason-Daley (23) charged with first-degree burglary and second-degree assault after a drunken altercation at Deborah Turner’s home in January 2016, during which he bit Deborah Turner and others struck or stabbed him.
Several occupants (Joshua and Matthew Turner, Elise Hada, Savanna Calene) and a neighbor witnessed events; police later arrested Mason-Daley nearby.
Deborah Turner allegedly asked others to fabricate statements to justify the group’s use of force; prosecution interviewed all present and called multiple witnesses.
At trial Mason-Daley claimed self-defense; jury was instructed on self-defense and the court gave a first- aggressor instruction (defense did not object).
Defense attempted to elicit testimony about Turner’s alleged witness-tampering through Lori Hada but did not lay the required foundation under ER 608(b); defense did not preserve some objections and later appealed several issues as manifest constitutional error.
Jury convicted on both counts; defendant appealed raising numerous issues (many waived); Court of Appeals affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of unpreserved trial issues	State: appellate review barred for issues not raised below	Mason-Daley: various unpreserved errors (jury instructions, offender score, evidentiary rulings) should be reviewed as manifest constitutional error	Court: most claims waived under RAP 2.5(a); not manifest where record insufficient
Aggressor / self-defense instruction	State: instruction appropriate because evidence supported that defendant provoked or unlawfully entered and engaged in the melee	Mason-Daley: instruction improper and undercut his self-defense claim	Court: waiver of challenge; instruction proper given conflicting evidence about who precipitated encounter (Riley/Davis)
Impeachment of Deborah Turner (alleged tampering)	Mason-Daley: exclusion prevented showing Turner’s bias and deprived him of defense	State: defense failed to follow ER 608(b) and did not confront Turner; exclusion was evidentiary	Court: no constitutional deprivation; defense could have confronted Turner or recalled her; exclusion for failure to lay foundation was proper
Unanimity on burglary victim	Mason-Daley: jury had to agree on specific assault victim for burglary predicate	State: burglary charge required intent to commit a crime against a person or property; jury need not pick a particular victim if acts form one continuing course	Court: verdicts need not single out one victim here; acts were a continuing course of conduct, so no unanimity error

State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682 (appellate waiver rule) (addresses preservation of issues for appeal)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (manifest constitutional-error review) (explains limits on raising new constitutional claims on appeal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard) (requires deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Riley, 137 Wn.2d 904 (self-defense/aggressor instruction) (discusses when aggressor instruction is appropriate)
State v. Davis, 119 Wn.2d 657 (conflicting evidence supports aggressor instruction) (addresses jury role when fault is disputed)
State v. Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d 403 (unanimity/election rule) (explains when prosecution must elect or court instruct on unanimity)
State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566 (continuing course of conduct) (defines when multiple acts are one continuing act for unanimity)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings) (framework for custodial interrogation and silence rights)
Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (404(b) and constitutional limits) (recognizes admission of other bad-acts evidence is not necessarily a constitutional issue)