State of Washington v. John Mark Crowder, 196 Wash. App. 861

On a July night, John Crowder gave two juvenile males an apparent marijuana substance, which they smoked; later he picked up 14-year-old I.D. and, at gunpoint, raped her in his Jeep.
Police executed a search five days later and seized multiple prescription bottles with a leafy substance and a revolver; one bottle was laboratory-tested and found to contain marijuana.
Crowder was charged with first-degree rape (with a firearm enhancement and a special allegation that the victim was under 15) and two counts of distribution of a controlled substance to persons under 18.
At trial, the jury convicted on all counts; Crowder received a 360-month-to-life sentence. He appealed.
On appeal, Crowder raised three issues: an off-the-record sidebar during voir dire violated his public-trial right; insufficiency of evidence that the distributed substance met the statutory THC (>0.3%) definition of marijuana; and insufficiency of evidence that the firearm was operable for sentencing enhancement purposes.
The court affirmed the rape conviction (and firearm enhancement) but reversed the two distribution convictions with prejudice due to insufficient proof of THC content linking the tested sample to the substance actually distributed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Crowder)	Held
Public-trial right for off-the-record sidebar during juror challenge	Sidebar was procedural and non-substantive; no closure of the proceeding	Sidebar closed part of voir dire and violated public-trial right	No public-trial violation; juror challenge occurred in open court and sidebar was nonsubstantive
Sufficiency of evidence that distributed substance was marijuana (THC > 0.3%)	Lab tested one seized bottle and found marijuana; victims identified smoking marijuana; random-sampling inference sufficient	State failed to prove the tested sample was the same substance given to the juveniles or that THC exceeded 0.3% in the consumed material	Reversed distribution convictions: State failed to connect the tested sample to the consumed substance or provide expert context on THC potency; proof insufficient
Firearm operability for sentencing enhancement	Victim identified and described the gun taken from Crowder’s house; appearance and use suffice circumstantially	Crowder argued State did not prove the firearm was operable as statutorily defined	Affirmed enhancement: Victim testimony and identification provided sufficient circumstantial evidence the device was an actual firearm

State v. Love, 183 Wn.2d 598 (2015) (public-trial right three-step analysis applies to jury selection)
State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508 (2014) (sidebar conferences generally not subject to public-trial rule)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (1992) (sufficiency review standard: view evidence in light most favorable to State)
State v. Caldera, 66 Wn. App. 548 (1992) (permitting random-sample testing when untested portions are shown to be similar in appearance/packaging)
State v. Tasker, 193 Wn. App. 575 (2016) (circumstantial evidence that a device appearing and used as a real gun can satisfy firearm definition)
State v. Porter, 186 Wn.2d 85 (2016) (statutory definitions are not always separate elements)
State v. Stevens, 158 Wn.2d 304 (2006) (State must present sufficient evidence to meet statutory definitions regardless of label)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (constitutional sufficiency standard for convictions)
State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 (1998) (discussing proof of delivery and identity of controlled substance)