State Of Washington v. Joseph Ingals Guenther
48946-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jun 6, 2017Background
- On Dec. 21, 2015, Deputy Tamura found Joseph Guenther sawing down a maple tree on land owned by a family trust; Tamura and Sgt. Apeland detained/arrested Guenther after inconsistent statements about permission to harvest.
- Witnesses: Peter Smith (friend/co-worker), Deputy Tamura, Sgt. Apeland, the trustee; defense called arborist Jason Cecil who testified the tree had some figured (burled) wood but was not harvested to preserve value.
- The State charged Guenther with first‑degree trafficking in stolen property (treble value trafficking theory based on intent to sell figured wood); third‑party purchaser Faith Farms was discussed as a buyer of figured maple.
- At trial the prosecutor made several contested arguments: referenced “guitars,” tied Smith’s statements to Faith Farms, and inquired of Sgt. Apeland about Smith’s forthrightness; one answer was stricken and the court gave a curative instruction.
- Guenther’s counsel did not object to several closing/rebuttal statements; the jury convicted Guenther of first‑degree trafficking. Sentencing imposed jail and $1,400 in LFOs after the court asked Guenther if he could pay and Guenther said yes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Guenther) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct — arguing facts not in evidence (references to "guitars" and Faith Farms) | Statements were reasonable inferences from testimony that maple can be used for musical instruments and that Faith Farms buys figured maple | Misstatements about guitars and direct sale to Faith Farms were facts not in evidence and prejudicial | Minor misstatements or reasonable inferences; no substantial likelihood of affecting verdict; claim fails |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — eliciting officer opinion on witness credibility | Officer’s description of Smith’s demeanor was within scope; any error cured by strike and curative instruction | Asking Sgt. Apeland whether Smith was forthright amounted to improper vouching and prejudiced jury | Even assuming improper, curative instruction and jury instructions cured prejudice; claim fails |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to prosecutor’s allegedly improper arguments | N/A (State defends conduct) | Counsel’s failure to object to misstatements prejudiced Guenther | No prejudice shown (misstatements immaterial or reasonable inferences); failure to object not deficient or would have been futile; claim fails |
| LFOs — court failed to inquire into ability to pay per RCW 10.01.160(3) | Court sufficiently inquired at sentencing; defendant said he could pay | Court imposed LFOs without adequate inquiry into present/future ability to pay | Invited‑error doctrine: Guenther expressly agreed he could pay and thus waived the claim; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727 (state must show prosecutorial misconduct likely affected the jury)
- State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (waiver of unobjected prosecutorial misconduct unless enduring prejudice; Hopson factors for mistrial review)
- State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438 (standards for preserved vs. unpreserved prosecutorial misconduct review)
- State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668 (permitted inferences from evidence in closing argument)
- State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222 (ineffective assistance—performance and prejudice test)
- State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577 (jury is sole judge of credibility; opinion testimony can be harmless when jury properly instructed)
- State v. Jungers, 125 Wn. App. 895 (issues of witness credibility belong to the jury)