State Of Washington v. Encarnacion Salas, Iv
408 P.3d 383
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Defendant Encarnacion “EJ” Salas stabbed Jesse Lopez in October 2014; Lopez died of multiple knife wounds. Salas testified he acted in self-defense; the jury convicted him of second-degree murder.
- Trial evidence included testimony from Lopez’s mother (Antonia) that she saw Salas ‘‘cutting’’ Lopez after Lopez was down, and Salas’s testimony that Lopez attacked him sexually and with a knife.
- During rebuttal closing, the prosecutor used an unsolicited PowerPoint of 22 slides (not pre‑seen by defense or court) juxtaposing a smiling in‑life photo of Lopez with a cropped booking/driver’s‑license photo of Salas and other emotional images.
- At the hospital after arrest, Salas — who had invoked his right to counsel — made statements to medical staff; an officer testified Salas “chuckled” and said “I killed somebody.” Defense did not move to suppress on physician‑patient privilege grounds at trial.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) prosecutorial misconduct in the use of certain PowerPoint slides that appealed to passion and undermined consideration of self‑defense/manslaughter, and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to seek suppression of hospital statements under the physician‑patient privilege.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Salas's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor's PowerPoint (first & last slides) | Slides summarized admitted exhibits and were permissible demonstratives; height/roles relevant to self‑defense | Juxtaposition and captions appealed to passion, improperly portrayed character and undercut self‑defense | PowerPoint slides (first and last) were prosecutorial misconduct; likely prejudicial → new trial granted |
| ‘‘Cop‑out’’ remark about manslaughter | Comment was a fair argument that evidence supported murder over manslaughter | Remark impermissibly denigrated manslaughter option | No reversible error on this remark alone (no timely objection; not incurably prejudicial) |
| Alleged misstatements about stab wounds/volume of blood | Argument drew reasonable inferences from forensic evidence | Argued misrepresentation of testimony | Court found prosecutor’s comments were reasonable inferences; no misconduct established |
| Hospital statements & suppression (physician‑patient privilege) | Medical staff were not state agents; questions were for treatment, so Miranda not implicated | Statements privileged under RCW physician‑patient rules; counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this at trial | Trial counsel was deficient for not invoking physician‑patient privilege; admission of hospital statements likely affected verdict → new trial |
| Scope of cross‑examination on victim’s past sexual aggressiveness | State limited because witness lacked firsthand knowledge | Salas sought to probe victim’s sexual behavior to support self‑defense theory | Court did not abuse discretion in barring cross‑examination (no firsthand knowledge) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pers. Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d 696 (2009) (standards for prosecutorial misconduct and dangers of prejudicial visual aids)
- State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463 (2015) (limits on prosecutor PowerPoint use; avoid inflammatory visuals/text)
- State v. Gibson, 3 Wn. App. 596 (1970) (physician‑patient privilege; third‑party presence and agent exception)
- State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856 (2009) (ineffective assistance standard and counsel’s duty to research law)
- State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (Strickland‑style test for deficient and prejudicial performance)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (right to counsel; waiver rules for custodial interrogation)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation and advisement requirements)