State Of Washington v. John David Swanson, 74939-1

John Swanson was charged with fourth-degree domestic violence assault (April 23) and second-degree robbery (handbag grab on April 28).
Wife testified to both incidents; for the robbery three eyewitnesses corroborated the handbag seizure and flight, while the assault rested on the wife's uncorroborated testimony.
Swanson moved to sever the counts before trial; the trial court denied the motion.
Trial lasted a few days; Swanson did not testify or present evidence and advanced different defenses in closing (denying the assault occurred; claiming lack of intent to steal the handbag because items were community property).
Jury convicted Swanson of assault and acquitted him of robbery. Swanson appealed the denial of severance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of motion to sever counts was an abuse of discretion	State: joinder was proper; jury can follow instructions and decide counts separately	Swanson: joinder prejudiced assault defense because force shown in robbery (corroborated by eyewitnesses) improperly bolstered wife's assault testimony	Court: no abuse of discretion; jurors could compartmentalize, defenses were consistent, and instruction to decide counts separately mitigated prejudice
Whether stronger robbery evidence (eyewitnesses) rendered joinder unfair	State: number of witnesses does not alone show prejudice	Swanson: robbery evidence was stronger and thus contaminating	Court: strength imbalance not dispositive; disputed issue in robbery was intent and wife was unsure of motive
Whether lack of cross-admissibility required severance	State: not dispositive; separate inadmissibility alone insufficient	Swanson: robbery evidence was propensity evidence making assault more plausible and thus prejudicial	Court: lack of cross-admissibility not automatic ground for severance; factors favored joinder (simplicity, short trial, separate defenses)
Need for limiting instruction	State: jurors presumed to follow standard separate-count instruction	Swanson: requested specific limiting instruction; absence prejudicial	Court: Swanson did not request one; pattern separate-count instruction sufficed under facts

State v. Bythrow, 114 Wn.2d 713 (1990) (standards for reversal of joinder/severance decisions and defendant's burden to show manifest prejudice)
State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870 (2009) (factors for severance and significance of limiting instruction where prosecution improperly relied on joined evidence)
State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24 (1994) (list of factors courts consider when deciding severance)
State v. Warren, 165 Wn.2d 17 (2008) (presumption that jurors follow instructions to consider each count separately)