State Of Washington, V James C. Mathes, 48401-3

Background

Mathes, subject to a no-contact order, held his ex-girlfriend Toste at gunpoint for several hours (including at the head) after confronting her about alleged infidelity; he fired shots at law enforcement during the encounter and was shot and hospitalized.
Charges included two counts of first-degree assault (against officers), two counts second-degree assault (alternative), first-degree kidnapping (with DV and firearm enhancements), unlawful imprisonment (alternative), assaults on Toste and Roy, felony no-contact order violation, felony harassment, and unlawful possession of a firearm.
Dr. Kenneth Muscatel (defense expert) opined Mathes had a serious mental disorder and substance abuse, but repeatedly could not state whether Mathes lacked the capacity to form requisite intent.
The trial court excluded Dr. Muscatel’s diminished-capacity testimony as not sufficiently connected to Mathes’s ability to form intent under ER 401/402/702 and controlling Washington law (Atsbeha).
The jury convicted Mathes on the greater offenses and special allegations; he received an aggregate standard-range sentence of 720 months (including consecutive sentences on the two first-degree assault counts).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mathes)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Exclusion of diminished-capacity expert testimony	Trial court wrongly excluded Dr. Muscatel; deprived right to present a defense	Expert’s opinions did not reliably connect disorder to inability to form specific intent; testimony like Atsbeha is irrelevant	Exclusion affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; testimony lacked relevance under ER 401/402/702
Ineffective assistance — failure to request voluntary intoxication instruction	Counsel should have requested instruction; intoxication affected capacity to form intent	Insufficient evidence that intoxication affected mental state; instruction would not have been given	No ineffective assistance — no substantial evidence linking intoxication to inability to form requisite intent
Ineffective assistance — failure to suppress hospital statements after request for counsel	Counsel should have moved to suppress post-request statements	Counsel reasonably used those statements to support theory (suicide-by-cop/mistaken intent) as trial strategy	No ineffective assistance — tactical decision; not deficient performance
Prosecutorial misconduct — misstating burden to prove intent	Prosecutor relieved State of proving intent by arguing mere firing proved first-degree assault	Prosecutor argued reasonable inferences from evidence (shots fired at officers show intent)	No misconduct — arguments were permissible inferences; law correctly stated
Prosecutorial misconduct — eliciting witness comment on defendant’s credibility	Asking Deputy if Mathes seemed to care was improper comment on credibility	Question did not ask one witness to evaluate another’s truthfulness and elicited equivocal answer	Waived (no objection) and not incurably prejudicial; no reversal
Double jeopardy — kidnapping and harassment convictions	Kidnapping and harassment punish same conduct	Statutory elements differ (abduction + intent to inflict extreme mental distress v. threat causing reasonable fear); convictions based on distinct conduct	No double jeopardy — offenses not same in law or fact
Consecutive sentences for two first-degree assaults	Sentences should have run concurrently because not "separate and distinct" conduct	Mathes failed to raise same-criminal-conduct argument at sentencing	Issue waived on appeal; sentencing affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Atsbeha, 142 Wn.2d 904 (2001) (expert diminished-capacity opinion must reasonably connect disorder to inability to form required intent)
State v. Lord, 161 Wn.2d 276 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (2011) (Strickland standard for ineffective assistance; two-prong test)
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (2012) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice analysis)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (federal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795 (2004) (same-evidence test and double jeopardy analysis)
State v. Price, 103 Wn. App. 845 (2000) (same criminal conduct / consecutive sentencing analysis)