State Of Washington v. Israel Espinoza-reyes, 74261-2

On August 21, 2014, two masked individuals (later identified as Israel Espinoza-Reyes and Tara Hasme) assaulted front-desk clerk Damaris Amaya at the Sandstone Inn, pointed a toy gun, and took money from the register; Amaya suffered a concussion and cervical sprain.
Deputies located the pair nearby; police recovered cash and a toy gun from Hasme’s purse; Amaya identified both perpetrators by voice, height, and build; surveillance video corroborated the assault and theft.
The State charged Espinoza-Reyes with first-degree robbery (infliction of bodily injury) under RCW 9A.56.190 and 9A.56.200(1)(a)(iii); Hasme pleaded guilty; Espinoza-Reyes pleaded not guilty.
Pretrial, the court excluded evidence that the pair had stolen from the hotel two days earlier but allowed limited evidence that their paychecks had been withheld (motive). During trial Amaya testified they “had a motive” and referenced interactions with management; defense moved for mistrial.
The trial court denied the mistrial, gave a curative instruction striking testimony about motive and Hasme’s interactions with management, and the jury convicted Espinoza-Reyes.
On appeal Espinoza-Reyes raised (1) for the first time that the amended information omitted an essential element of robbery (victim’s possessory interest) and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after Amaya’s testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Espinoza-Reyes)	Held
Charging document sufficiency: whether amended information omitted an essential element (victim’s ownership/possessory interest)	Information fairly alleges property was taken “from the person…of Damaris Amaya,” which implies possessory interest	Information failed to allege victim’s ownership/possessory interest as required for robbery	Court held information, liberally construed, sufficiently alleged Amaya’s possessory interest and was constitutionally sufficient; no prejudice shown
Denial of mistrial after testimony referencing motive/management interactions	Testimony did not disclose the excluded prior-theft incident; the reference was non-specific and curable	Testimony violated motion in limine and was prejudicial such that mistrial was required	Court held trial court did not abuse discretion: testimony did not violate the in limine ruling, the court struck the statements, gave a limiting instruction, and there was no substantial likelihood of prejudice

State v. Porter, 186 Wn.2d 85 (constitutional sufficiency of charging document)
State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93 (liberal construction of charging documents and two-prong test)
State v. Hopper, 118 Wn.2d 151 (allegations implying missing statutory language may suffice)
State v. Graham, 64 Wn. App. 305 (allegation that property was taken "from the person" indicates victim possession)
State v. Tvedt, 153 Wn.2d 705 (sufficiency of allegations that property was taken "from or from the presence of" named individuals)