State Of Washington v. Kevin Lee Grothaus, 73562-4

Grothaus, a carpenter employed by neighbor Joe Myers, was provided a company truck and numerous tools for work. Between Dec. 2012 and Mar. 2013 Grothaus pawned many of Myers' tools as collateral for loans.
Myers fired Grothaus on March 5, 2013 and demanded return of the tools; Grothaus returned the truck but many tools were missing.
Detective Clinko recovered 16 tools from pawnshops that Grothaus had pawned; Grothaus admitted pawning the tools, lacked authority to do so, and intended to redeem them but had not.
The State charged Grothaus with first-degree trafficking in stolen property and second-degree theft.
At trial, Myers testified in response to whether Grothaus was permitted to pawn the tools: "That's theft. No." Defense objected and moved for mistrial; court instead struck the portion beyond "no" and instructed the jury to disregard the remainder. Jury convicted Grothaus.
At sentencing the court imposed mandatory victim penalty assessment and mandatory DNA fee; Grothaus challenged these fees for the first time on appeal as applied to an indigent defendant.

Issue	Grothaus' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether witness Myers' statement "That's theft" denied Grothaus a fair trial by offering an opinion on guilt	Myers' opinion on guilt was improper and prejudicial, violating right to jury determination	The comment was waived for harmless error because the court struck it and gave a curative instruction; jurors are presumed to follow instructions	Court held the comment was improper but cured by the court's instruction; any error was harmless because untainted evidence overwhelmingly supported conviction
Whether the curative instruction given was legally insufficient	Requested a stronger instruction emphasizing jury's independent duty to determine guilt	State argued the offered instruction was adequate; defense accepted the court's instruction at trial	Court found defense waived any claim the instruction was deficient by not objecting; no reversal
Whether imposition of mandatory victim penalty assessment and mandatory DNA fee on indigent defendant violates substantive due process as applied	Imposition violates due process when applied to an indigent defendant	Fees are statutorily mandatory at sentencing; constitutional challenge is not ripe unless State attempts to enforce collection	Court declined to reach the as-applied due process claim on the merits, citing ripeness and controlling precedent; affirmed imposition at sentencing without deciding enforcement issues

Quaale v. State, 182 Wn.2d 191 (opinion testimony on guilt impermissible)
Kirkman v. State, 159 Wn.2d 918 (opinion testimony on guilt violates jury right)
Haqer v. State, 171 Wn.2d 151 (improper testimony may be cured by instruction)
Stein v. State, 144 Wn.2d 236 (presumption that juries follow instructions)
Cross, In re Pers. Restraint of Cross, 180 Wn.2d 664 (harmless error: untainted evidence overwhelming)
Curry v. State, 118 Wn.2d 911 (victim penalty assessment constitutional concerns arise on enforcement)