State of Washington v. Jeffrey Leonard Huesties, 33828-2

On Oct. 30, 2014, Jeffrey Huesties rented a dehumidifier from Pasco Rentals and failed to return it.
Pasco Rentals sent certified mail to the rental address; mail was returned unclaimed after three attempts. The company also left a voicemail; Huesties called back promising to return the unit but did not.
Huesties testified he rented the unit for a third party, Tony Rodriguez, who lacked ID; Huesties provided limited, inconsistent information about Rodriguez and did not produce Rodriguez or two friends (John and Lisa) at trial.
Police investigation during trial found no evidence Rodriguez lived at the address Huesties later supplied.
Jury was instructed on (1) presumption of intent to deprive after proper notice (Instructions 9 & 10) and (2) the missing-witness inference (Instruction 12). Defense counsel did not object to the instructions.
Jury convicted Huesties of theft of rental property; he appealed arguing insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance for failing to object to the instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Huesties)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that defendant "wrongfully obtained" rental property	Evidence supported wrongful acquisition because rental contract required use at listed address and Rodriguez's address was not listed; jurors could discredit Huesties's story	Huesties argued he rented for Rodriguez and lacked intent to deprive	Affirmed — sufficient evidence to support wrongful acquisition or wrongful retention
Failure to object to Instructions 9 & 10 (presumption after "proper notice")	Statute permits presumption; instruction permissible and any error harmless because Huesties had actual phone notice and promised return	Huesties argued counsel deficient for not objecting and instruction was improper per Fleming	No prejudice — even if counsel erred, error not prejudicial because of stronger actual-notice evidence
Failure to object to Instruction 12 (missing-witness inference)	Missing witnesses (John, Lisa, Rodriguez) were peculiarly available to Huesties, important to his defense, and not called; inference permissible	Huesties argued instruction improper because Rodriguez might have been incriminating (Blair)	Affirmed — missing-witness instruction proper; limitations (including Blair) do not bar the inference here

State v. Ortega-Martinez, 124 Wn.2d 702 (1994) (sufficiency standard for alternative theories of theft)
State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856 (2009) (ineffective assistance may be raised on appeal)
State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870 (2009) (standard of review for ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222 (1987) (Strickland framework adopted for Washington ineffective assistance claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (performance-and-prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
State v. Fleming, 155 Wn. App. 489 (2010) (cautions on use of statutory notice-presumption instruction)
State v. Blair, 117 Wn.2d 479 (1991) (limitations on missing-witness inference when testimony would be incriminating)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (analysis of when missing-witness instruction will be overruled)