State of Washington v. Gary Lee Brown, Jr. aka Gary Lee Taylor, 34980-2

Background

Gary Brown (also known as Gary Taylor) was convicted of first-degree arson for a mobile home fire on April 22, 2014; jury found him guilty and court imposed an exceptional sentence.
Key evidence: a written Victim/Witness Statement (prepared and signed by Anthony Snodgrass and Detective Wallace) in which Snodgrass said Brown admitted setting the fire for a truck at Orellana-Arita's request; Snodgrass testified at trial claiming lack of memory.
The trial court allowed the prosecutor to impeach Snodgrass and later admitted Snodgrass’s written statement (redacted) into evidence as substantive evidence under State v. Smith.
Other testimony: eyewitness Anderson placed Brown at the scene with gasoline containers; victim Sally Emery made two inculpatory statements (later struck) blaming Brown; Ms. Ferry testified about Brown’s statements that others wanted the victims out.
Defense challenges on appeal: admission of the Snodgrass affidavit (and the trial judge’s prompting), handling of Emery’s statements, alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, Ferry’s testimony (double hearsay/confrontation), and a firefighter’s testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brown)	Held
Admissibility of Snodgrass statement as substantive evidence	Statement met Smith factors (voluntary, minimal guarantees of truthfulness, police procedure supporting probable cause, witness subject to cross-exam) and thus admissible under ER 801(d)(1)(i)	Admission was improper impeachment/substantive use; trial judge abused discretion	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; statement admissible under Smith
Judge’s courtroom intervention directing prosecutor to impeach Snodgrass	Court management to avoid delay; did not itself inject prosecutorial role	Separation of powers / appearance of fairness violation; biased tribunal	No standing to raise separation-of-powers; comment was inartful but not reversible error; admission of evidence cured any concern
Emery’s stricken opinion testimony (“Gary burned it”)	State relied on other admissible evidence; court struck and instructed jury to disregard	Stricken statements were prejudicial and invasion of jury’s role — should require mistrial	No relief — defense did not request mistrial/new trial; jurors presumed to follow instruction; remarks not so egregious to require new trial
Claims of ineffective assistance (failure to object/seeking mistrial)	Counsel’s choices were reasonable; admission of Smith statement was proper; no prejudice shown	Counsel erred by not objecting to impeachment and not seeking mistrial for Emery comments	Denied — deficiency and prejudice not established under Strickland

Key Cases Cited

State v. Smith, 97 Wn.2d 856 (1982) (framework for admitting prior witness statements as nonhearsay under ER 801(d)(1)(i))
State v. Otton, 185 Wn.2d 673 (2016) (reaffirming Smith factors and need to analyze reliability and context)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation clause principles)
State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690 (1995) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Weber, 99 Wn.2d 158 (1983) (test for mistrial/new trial when inadmissible testimony is presented)