State of Washington v. Gary Bruce Farnworth, 199 Wash. App. 185

Background

Farnworth received 46 Washington Department of Labor & Industries (DLI) time-loss warrants between 2010–2012 while working at a used-car lot; he had signed periodic worker verification forms certifying no work.
DLI investigated after a tip, recorded Farnworth working at the lot, and obtained his admission that he worked there while certifying unemployment; DLI continued payments until Feb 2013 (reduced rate thereafter).
State charged three counts of first-degree theft by deception, aggregating multiple benefit payments into each count based on alleged common schemes spanning discrete date ranges (separated by two surgery/recovery gaps).
At trial the court admitted DLI payment orders and Department of Licensing vehicle records through custodians who did not prepare them; defense objected on hearsay and confrontation-clause grounds.
Defense sought (1) continuance for expert rebuttal, (2) to introduce evidence that DLI would have paid lower benefits even if Farnworth had reported working, and (3) to impeach a DLI investigator with alleged past misconduct; requests were denied.
Jury acquitted on count I but convicted on counts II and III; court sentenced Farnworth on two concurrent terms and ordered restitution; appellate court vacated one conviction and affirmed the other.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Farnworth)	Held
Trial continuance for late expert disclosure	No prejudice; witness was disclosed months earlier or was a fact witness, not expert	Late disclosure prevented preparation and rebuttal expert; continuance required	Denied; no abuse of discretion—defendant’s continuance claims were inconsistent with record and untimely raised
Brady / disclosure of witness misconduct	State did not possess or know of investigator McCord’s alleged past misconduct; no suppression	Failure to disclose McCord’s alleged Ponzi-scheme involvement deprived defense of impeachment (Brady)	No Brady violation shown—defendant failed to show materiality or that the evidence would have been admissible/prejudicial
Confrontation clause / admission of DLI and licensing records	Records are non-testimonial business records or contain defendant’s own statements; Crawford/Davis inapplicable	Admission of records prepared by non-testifying officials violated Sixth Amendment confrontation rights	No Sixth Amendment violation—records were routine business records or contained defendant’s statements; not testimonial for prosecution purposes
Aggregation of multiple payments into multiple first-degree counts and jury instruction	Prosecutor may aggregate series into counts here (charged common schemes across three periods); instruction on aggregation (value) was given	Aggregation into more than one first-degree count improper under statutory/common-law rules; "common scheme or plan" must be pleaded and be an element in to-convict instructions; instructional omission prejudicial	Aggregation argument wins in part: conviction vacated as State relied on a common-scheme theory but tried to aggregate into multiple first-degree counts; court holds aggregation under statute/common-law limited—vacates one conviction; failure to include "common scheme or plan" in to-convict instructions was error but harmless here

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor's suppression of materially favorable evidence violates due process)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation-clause framework)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinguishes testimonial statements by primary purpose test)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady materiality / prejudice standard)
State v. George, 161 Wn.2d 203 (2007) (value for theft is the total amount obtained, not net gain)
State v. Barton, 28 Wn. App. 690 (1981) (common‑law aggregation of multiple thefts into higher‑value charge)
State v. Hoyt, 79 Wn. App. 494 (1995) (statutory misdemeanor-aggregation treated as "may be aggregated in one count")
State v. Jasper, 174 Wn.2d 96 (2012) (records prepared after investigation may be testimonial)
State v. Hassan, 184 Wn. App. 140 (2014) (when State aggregates to reach value threshold, common-scheme is essential and must be alleged)
State v. Rivas, 168 Wn. App. 882 (2012) (aggregation statutes require pleading and instruction on common scheme when used to reach statutory threshold)