State Of Washington v. James Stanton Brant, Jr., 73955-7

Defendant James Brant was charged with residential burglary, fourth-degree assault, and interfering with domestic violence reporting for an April 22, 2015 incident at his estranged wife Deanna's home.
The trial court admitted evidence of prior incidents (Feb. 24 911 call and a March ‘‘gun display’’ episode) as res gestae and evidence relevant to the assault element of fear; it excluded more remote or more prejudicial incidents (2007 axe incident; 2014 pistol-taking).
Deanna testified that on April 22 Brant entered her home without permission, grabbed and shoved her, broke and threw phones to prevent her calling 911, and took a weapon; deputies and a physician corroborated visible distress and minor injuries.
Brant admitted retrieving his shotgun from Deanna’s closet, contemplating suicide, and grabbing Deanna to restrain her, but denied being excluded from the house at all times; he claimed some of Deanna’s conduct provoked his actions.
A jury convicted Brant of residential burglary and fourth-degree assault but acquitted him of interfering with domestic violence reporting; he appealed the admission of prior-incident evidence and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brant)	Held
Admissibility of prior-incident evidence (res gestae/ER 404(b))	Prior incidents were res gestae and relevant to Deanna's fear and to explain why she had the gun; admissible for a complete picture.	Trial court abused discretion by admitting prior incidents without on-the-record ER 404(b) probative/prejudice balancing.	Any failure to make an on-the-record balancing was harmless; prior incidents were probative on disputed issues (entry permission, motive to disable phones, victim fear). Affirmed.
Prosecutorial misconduct for disparaging defense counsel in closing	Prosecutor’s remarks were a fair response to defense argument that Deanna was "not scareable" and were directed at the argument, not counsel’s integrity.	Remarks improperly disparaged defense counsel and denied Brant a fair trial.	Remarks addressed defense arguments and were not so flagrant or incurable as to require reversal; no misconduct warranting reversal.
Cumulative error	N/A (State)	Trial errors cumulatively deprived Brant of a fair trial.	Because individual claims fail, cumulative error claim fails.

State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825 (recognizing res gestae/same-transaction exception to ER 404(b))
State v. Schaffer, 63 Wn. App. 761 (res gestae admissible to provide a complete description of the crime)
State v. Tharp, 96 Wn.2d 591 (policy for admitting a complete picture for jury)
State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529 (ER 404(b) requirements and that reply to defense argument may justify remarks)
State v. Carleton, 82 Wn. App. 680 (harmlessness when on-the-record balancing omitted but would not have changed outcome)
State v. Dhaliwal, 150 Wn.2d 559 (standard for proving prosecutorial misconduct requires showing prejudice)
State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438 (improper to disparage counsel’s role or integrity)
State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668 (reversal for unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct only if flagrant and incurable)