State Of Washington, V. James Garlied Dutcher, 81577-6

Early-morning theft: Shustov’s motorcycle was taken and tracked by GPS to a light-blue pickup; officers found Dutcher sitting on the truck bumper and arrested him.
Dutcher gave inconsistent statements to police but testified at trial that he was asked by an acquaintance (Dawn Brown) to help move the motorcycle and did not know it was stolen.
Voir dire: prospective Juror 4 initially said, based on prior experience in Hong Kong/China, the system presumes guilt, but after individual questioning said he would “try” to presume innocence and could be impartial; neither party challenged Juror 4 and he was seated.
At trial, defense elicited that the victim (Shustov) spoke with witnesses in the courthouse hallway before testifying; defense used that to impeach memory of earlier statements.
Post-conviction claims on appeal: Dutcher argued the court should have removed Juror 4 for actual bias and should have sua sponte ordered ER 615 exclusion of witnesses; he also raised ineffective-assistance claims alleging counsel failed to challenge Juror 4, to move for ER 615 exclusion, to procure Dawn Brown, and to communicate plea offers.
Holding: Court affirmed conviction — Juror 4 did not show actual bias; ER 615 claim waived; ineffective-assistance claims not shown (no deficient performance or prejudice).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dutcher)	Held
Juror actual bias	Juror 4 was rehabilitated by court/prosecutor questioning and could be impartial	Juror 4’s initial statement showed bias and required removal sua sponte	No actual bias; follow-up assurances sufficient; seating juror not reversible error
Trial court duty to order ER 615 witness exclusion	No sua sponte duty; claim not preserved and not constitutional error	Court should have excluded witnesses and held a hearing about alleged hallway discussions	Waived for failure to raise below; not manifest constitutional error; no demonstrated prejudice
IAC — failure to challenge Juror 4	Counsel’s choice not to use peremptory was tactical; juror was not actually biased	Counsel was deficient for not moving to remove Juror 4 for cause	No deficient performance shown; no prejudice established
IAC — failure to locate/subpoena Dawn Brown	Record shows defense tried and could not find Brown; record silent on counsel’s alleged failures	Counsel failed to investigate/subpoena a key witness who would corroborate Dutcher	Record inadequate to show deficient performance or that Brown’s testimony would likely change outcome
IAC — plea-offer communication	Record contains almost no plea negotiation detail; omnibus order indicates notice of possible consequences	Counsel failed to advise Dutcher of plea status and offers	No record support of deficient advice or prejudice; no reasonable probability plea outcome would differ

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Guevara Diaz, 11 Wn. App. 2d 843 (seating a actually biased juror requires reversal; can be raised on appeal)
State v. Irby, 187 Wn. App. 183 (juror statements showing predisposition to guilt demonstrate actual bias)
State v. Lawler, 194 Wn. App. 275 (equivocal juror answers, counsel’s tactical use of peremptories, and deference to trial judge’s demeanor assessments)
State v. Sassen Van Elsloo, 191 Wn.2d 798 (equivocal answers alone do not establish actual bias)
State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918 (narrow RAP 2.5(a)(3) exception for manifest error affecting a constitutional right)
State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 (requirement of actual prejudice to invoke manifest constitutional error)