State Of Washington v. Fresnel F. Williams, 47764-5

Bethany Stevens had an active no-contact domestic violence order against Fresnel Williams.
On Aug. 29, 2014, Stevens went to a Tacoma clinic; she called 911 reporting Williams was at the clinic in violation of the order.
Clinic receptionist Valerie Goodenough testified she recognized Stevens as a patient, did not know the man with her, described him (young Black male, slight build), and tentatively identified Williams in court but admitted she wasn’t certain.
Prosecutor, in closing, characterized Goodenough’s testimony as saying the man at the clinic bore a "very striking resemblance" to Williams and that the two appeared together with Williams acting aggressively.
Jury convicted Williams of felony violation of a domestic violence court order; mistried on felony harassment. Williams appealed on prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing a fact not in evidence (that Goodenough said the man bore a “very striking resemblance” to Williams)	Prosecutor misstated evidence and argued an identification stronger than the witness’s tentative testimony, bolstering Stevens’s credibility	Remark was a fact-free characterization that amounted to arguing evidence outside the record and improperly urged identification	No misconduct; prosecutor drew a reasonable inference from Goodenough’s description and did not quote or invent testimony
Whether failure to object by defense counsel constituted ineffective assistance	Williams argued counsel’s failure to object to the alleged misconduct was deficient and prejudicial	Defense contended there was no improper remark, so no basis to object; performance was not deficient	No ineffective assistance: because remark wasn’t improper, counsel had no meritorious objection and performance was not deficient

State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (discusses standard for prosecutorial misconduct review)
State v. Warren, 165 Wn.2d 17 (instructs to evaluate comments in context of total argument and evidence)
State v. Pierce, 169 Wn. App. 533 (State has broad latitude to argue inferences from evidence)
State v. Hartzell, 156 Wn. App. 918 (prosecutor’s inference-based comments did not imply inadmissible facts)
State v. Turner, 167 Wn. App. 871 (incorrect factual statement in argument not necessarily prejudicial)
State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870 (standard of review for ineffective assistance claims)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (two-pronged ineffective assistance test)
State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668 (objective standard for counsel performance)
State v. Foster, 140 Wn. App. 266 (court need not reach both prongs if one fails)