State Of Washington v. Jaspal Singh Gill, 72951-9

Background

In August 2012 Jaspal Singh Gill shot and killed Harjit Singh outside Gill's ex-wife's home; Gill was charged with first-degree murder and a firearm enhancement after a first trial ended in a mistrial.
State's theory: Gill harbored motive stemming from an alleged affair between Harjit's and Gill's ex-wife, longstanding acrimony from dissolution proceedings, and anger toward Harjit; State introduced testimony from the ex-wife's dissolution attorney to establish motive.
Defense: Gill asserted self-defense, disputed the sequence of events immediately before the shooting, and pointed to evidence of PTSD and alcohol use.
Trial developments: multi-day testimony from Grewal (the driver/witness) required Punjabi interpretation; disputes arose over interpreter accuracy and a prosecutor’s handling of Grewal's examination.
Jury found Gill guilty of first-degree murder with a firearm enhancement; Gill appealed raising evidentiary, interpreter, prosecutorial-misconduct, sufficiency-of-evidence (premeditation), and jury-instruction claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gill)	Held
Admissibility of dissolution-attorney testimony (ER 404(b)/403)	Testimony was relevant to motive and rebutted self-defense; probative value outweighed prejudice	Evidence was irrelevant, prejudicial, remote in time, and impermissible propensity evidence	Court affirmed admission: evidence relevant to motive and not unduly prejudicial; trial court did not abuse discretion
Competence/accuracy of trial interpreter	Interpreter ultimately followed court order to interpret each word; disputed segments were immaterial to core shooting testimony	Interpreter failed GR 11.2 obligations, mistranslated key testimony, and deprived Gill of a fair trial	Court held errors in interpreting occurred but were not material; Gill failed to show his rights were materially affected
Prosecutorial misconduct during questioning of witness Grewal	Prosecutor’s characterization of witness as "hostile" justified leading questions; no expression of personal opinion on credibility	Prosecutor improperly vouched for or disparaged witness credibility and committed misconduct	Court found no clear and unmistakable expression of personal opinion; no prosecutorial misconduct shown
Sufficiency of evidence of premeditation	Circumstantial proof (motive, procurement and carriage of gun, approach/parking, multiple shots with pause) supports premeditation	Killing was instant/self-defense; evidence insufficient to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt	Court held evidence sufficient; reasonable juror could infer premeditation from motive, weapon procurement, approach/stealth, and method of killing
Voluntary-intoxication jury instruction (first raised on appeal)	Instruction properly limited use of intoxication evidence and prevented excuse by intoxication	Instruction allegedly imposed an affirmative defense, commented on the evidence, and misstated law, affecting self-defense analysis	Court declined review under RAP 2.5(a) (not preserved); assuming constitutional magnitude, found no manifest error — instruction proper and not prejudicial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Olsen, 175 Wn. App. 269 (2013) (404(b) motive analysis)
State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668 (1997) (evidence of motive and prior disputes relevant to homicide cases)
State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244 (1994) (prejudicial effect balancing under ER 403)
State v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191 (2014) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829 (1991) (constitutional right to fair trial and effective interpreter considerations)
State v. Larson, 160 Wn. App. 577 (2011) (interpreter competency and confrontation rights)
State v. Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d 423 (2014) (prosecutorial misconduct standard: clear and unmistakable expression of opinion)
State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628 (1995) (premeditation factors and circumstantial proof)