State Of Washington v. Javier Alejandr Macias-campos, 74107-1

In 2014–2015 Macias-Campos lived with M.O.; he became controlling and physically abusive, threatened her, and tied her hands in a motel bathroom; police later arrested him.
M.O. testified that Macias-Campos had told her about prior violent conduct against a former partner, R., including hitting and restraining her.
The State charged Macias-Campos with fourth degree assault, felony harassment, unlawful imprisonment, and witness tampering, each with a domestic violence aggravator.
Defense moved pretrial to exclude evidence of prior acts under ER 404(b); the trial court admitted testimony about the prior acts but gave a limiting instruction restricting use to (1) whether M.O. reasonably feared the defendant and (2) whether any restraint was accomplished by intimidation.
The jury convicted on the charged counts and found domestic-relationship aggravators; Macias-Campos appealed the admission of the prior-acts testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Macias-Campos)	Held
Admissibility of prior-acts evidence under ER 404(b)	Evidence was offered to prove elements: that M.O. reasonably feared defendant (harassment) and that restraint was by intimidation (unlawful imprisonment)	Evidence was improper character evidence or used to impeach/broaden credibility; prejudicial	Court affirmed admission under ER 404(b); trial court properly identified purpose and gave limiting instruction
Relevance to elements of charged crimes	Prior domestic violence made M.O.'s fear and nonconsent by intimidation more probable	Prior acts were collateral and unduly prejudicial	Evidence was relevant to elements (reasonable fear; restraint by intimidation) and thus probative
Prejudicial effect vs. probative value	Overriding probative value because evidence went to necessary elements	Prejudice outweighed probative value; risk of unfair prejudice in domestic-violence prior-act evidence	Court weighed factors, found probative value outweighed prejudice (citing Ashley), and did not abuse discretion
Applicability of State v. Gunderson	N/A	Argued Gunderson forbids using prior-acts to impeach where victim did not recant, thus barring the evidence	Gunderson inapplicable because evidence was admitted to prove elements, not to impeach credibility; admission upheld

State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 269 P.3d 207 (discusses ER 404(b) four-part test and appellate review standard)
State v. Ashley, 186 Wn.2d 32, 375 P.3d 673 (prior domestic-violence acts admissible where they have overriding probative value to show restraint by intimidation)
State v. Gunderson, 181 Wn.2d 916, 337 P.3d 1090 (prior-act evidence cannot be used to impeach a victim who has not recanted or contradicted prior statements)
State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 202 P.3d 937 (addresses reasonable-fear element in harassment statute)
State v. Raqin, 94 Wn. App. 407, 972 P.2d 519 (prior-act evidence against third parties may be admissible to put threats in context)