State Of Washington v. Jaarso Ahmed Abdi & Abdunasir Said, 73263-3

Background

On Dec. 30, 2013, three men (Abdi, Said, and Forbes) repeatedly demanded money at the home of Mohamed Ali and Halimo Dalmar, displayed firearms, and later surrounded Dalmar’s car while her son was present; Forbes pointed a gun at the house where children were inside.
Police responded to 911 calls, the suspects fled, Abdi and Said were apprehended; weapons were later recovered from a recycling bin.
Ali, Dalmar, and their daughter Muna identified Abdi and Said in lineups and at trial; Dalmar later identified Forbes in a photo montage.
The State charged Abdi and Said with multiple counts including first-degree attempted robbery (against Dalmar and Ali) and first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm; a count involving Freeman was dismissed because Freeman did not appear.
A jury convicted Abdi and Said of attempted first-degree robbery as to Dalmar and unlawful possession of a firearm; other counts resulted in acquittal or hung juries.
In a bifurcated proceeding the jury found the rapid-recidivism aggravator; each defendant received a standard-range sentence and mandatory financial obligations. Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted first-degree robbery (Dalmar)	State: evidence (witness IDs, guns displayed, actions) supports conviction, including accomplice liability.	Abdi/Said: differing wording in the two "to convict" instructions required proof as principals for the Dalmar count; insufficient evidence each acted as principal.	Affirmed: when read with general accomplice instruction, instructions were not misleading; Teal controls; accomplice liability sufficed.
Sufficiency of evidence for unlawful possession of a firearm	State: eyewitness testimony tied weapons to defendants; weapons recovered near scene.	Defendants: insufficient proof they possessed the recovered firearms.	Affirmed: eyewitnesses placed guns with defendants and supported reasonable inference of possession.
Admission of evidence about the dismissed Freeman assault / res gestae	State: testimony about Freeman assault was part of the continuous events and relevant to identity and possession.	Defendants: evidence was unfairly prejudicial or should have been limited/excluded as improper prior-bad-act evidence.	Affirmed: evidence admissible as res gestae and probative of identity/possession; ER 403 balancing did not require exclusion or limiting instruction.
Postarrest lineups & counsel absence; post-lineup ID statements	State: lineups occurred before formal charging so no constitutional right to counsel; lineups not unduly suggestive; post-lineup identification statements admissible.	Defendants: counsel should have been present at in-custody lineups; admission of post-lineup ID statements and hearsay prejudiced them; ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object.	Affirmed: no constitutional violation; any CrR rule error harmless; ID statements admissible under ER 801(d)(1)(C); ineffective assistance claim fails (no deficiency or no prejudice).
Lesser-included offense instruction (unlawful display of weapon)	Defendants: jury should have been instructed on unlawful display as a lesser-included offense of attempted robbery.	State: evidence showed demands for money while guns were shown — not merely display; no evidence supporting only the lesser offense.	Affirmed: Workman two-prong test not met on factual prong; no affirmative evidence supporting only the lesser offense.
Rapid-recidivism aggravator vagueness	Defendants: statute term "shortly after being released from incarceration" is unconstitutionally vague.	State: phrase is sufficiently definite as applied to these facts (Abdi ~4 days; Said ~6 hours after release).	Affirmed: statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied here.
Challenge to mandatory LFOs (DNA fee, VPA)	Abdi: mandatory fees violate substantive due process when imposed on indigent defendants.	State: claim not ripe or preserved; no enforcement action yet; defendant lacks standing to challenge on appeal.	Affirmed: procedural bar and lack of ripeness/standing; challenge not considered on merits.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Teal, 152 Wn.2d 333 (2004) (a "to convict" instruction referring only to the defendant does not require principal liability when a general accomplice instruction is given)
State v. Willis, 153 Wn.2d 366 (2005) (discussed regarding omission of "or an accomplice" in a to-convict instruction)
State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443 (1978) (two-pronged test for lesser-included offense instructions)
State v. Gunderson, 181 Wn.2d 916 (2014) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Stratton, 139 Wn. App. 511 (2007) (post-perception identification statements admissible to make identifications understandable)
State v. Shelton, 194 Wn. App. 660 (2016) (challenge to mandatory DNA fee not ripe on appeal; standing/ripeness issues)