State Of Washington v. Dejon Lee Payne, 74028-8

Defendant Dejon Payne (aka “Young”) was charged with attempted first-degree murder and first-degree assault with a firearm for shooting Terrance Nicholson six times on Jan. 1, 2014; Nicholson and multiple eyewitnesses identified Payne as the shooter.
Payne moved pretrial to exclude evidence that a State witness (Kevin Nguyen) had a pending residential burglary charge and that Payne was later arrested in California; the court limited but did not finally bar evidence of flight, subject to foundational proof.
At trial the court excluded cross‑examination about Nguyen’s pending charge; the jury nevertheless heard multiple identifications of Payne (including Nicholson’s immediate out‑of‑court statements) and testimony situating Payne at the scene.
The State elicited testimony that Payne was arrested in California months after the shooting; Payne did not object at trial to that testimony.
After conviction (attempted murder conviction sustained; assault vacated on double jeopardy grounds), Payne moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct: juror 12 may have recognized witness Patric Heisser and juror 13 had attended the same high school as Nicholson; the trial court denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Payne)	Held
1) Exclusion of cross‑exam about Nguyen's pending charge	Exclusion proper/harmless because Nguyen was not indispensable and other untainted evidence strongly supported conviction	Exclusion violated Sixth Amendment confrontation/right to present a defense; witness bias evidence always admissible	Court: Even if exclusion was error, it was harmless under overwhelming untainted evidence test; no reversal
2) Admission of testimony that Payne was arrested in California	Admissible as flight evidence if foundation shown; court’s conditional ruling permitted limited testimony	Testimony prejudicial and should have been excluded as evidence of flight	Court: Payne waived the issue by failing to object at trial; even if admitted in error, its effect was harmless given the evidence
3) Denial of new trial for juror misconduct (jurors 12 & 13)	Juror nondisclosures did not constitute misconduct that injected extrinsic evidence or bias affecting verdict	Jurors failed to disclose acquaintanceships and injected extrinsic information during deliberations, warranting new trial	Court: No abuse of discretion; disclosures either were made during trial or constituted facts inhering in the verdict, and no showing that verdict was affected
4) Cumulative error	N/A	Combined errors rendered trial fundamentally unfair	Court: Doctrine inapplicable; identified errors (if any) were harmless and not pervasive

Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (cross‑examination to show witness bias is central to Confrontation Clause analysis)
Guloy v. State, 104 Wn.2d 412 (Wash. 1985) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error; "overwhelming untainted evidence" test)
Freeburg v. State, 105 Wn. App. 492 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (admissibility of flight evidence under ER 404(b))
Koloske v. State, 100 Wn.2d 889 (Wash. 1984) (limine rulings: final vs. tentative rulings and preservation of objections)