State Of Washington, V. Kevin P. Taylor, 490 P.3d 263

Kevin Taylor was convicted of second-degree felony murder (based on alleged second-degree assault) and second-degree arson after a jury trial; he was acquitted of intentional second-degree murder.
Taylor has a long‑standing seizure disorder; defense presented diminished‑capacity/postictal psychosis theory (Dr. Kanner) that he lacked capacity to form intent/knowledge/malice/recklessness during episodes.
State’s expert (Dr. Jenna Tomei) agreed with much of the medical science but testified she believed Taylor had capacity; during direct examination she violated multiple pretrial limine rulings by referencing Taylor’s criminal history, substance use, and that he asked for an attorney.
Defense repeatedly objected, moved to strike, and sought a mistrial; the trial court denied mistrial, issued limiting/curative instructions in part, and found no purposeful misconduct by the witness.
Taylor also unsuccessfully challenged a juror for cause; the court denied the challenge and Taylor did not use a peremptory on that juror.
On appeal the court held the denial of the mistrial was an abuse of discretion (cumulative prejudicial effect of State’s failures) and identified instructional error for omitting recklessness from the diminished‑capacity instruction; the juror challenge denial was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of for‑cause challenge to juror	State: juror could be impartial; denial proper	Taylor: juror’s familiarity with State witness biased him	Court: no abuse of discretion; juror said he’d follow the facts and give expert testimony proper weight; denial affirmed
Denial of mistrial based on cumulative limine violations by State expert	State: violations were inadvertent, minimal, and curable by instructions	Taylor: repeated, serious violations by State (witness not properly instructed) created constitutional prejudice requiring a new trial	Court: abused discretion; cumulative errors (criminal history, substance use, request for counsel) and State’s failure to prepare witness were serious and not fully curable — reversal/new trial
Omission of recklessness from diminished‑capacity instruction	State (trial): recklessness not required/should not be included (later argued insufficiency)	Taylor: diminished capacity applies to recklessness for assault II; expert evidence supported instruction	Court: omission was instructional error — recklessness should have been included (error noted though mistrial dispositive)

State v. Weber, 99 Wn.2d 158 (Weber test for mistrial: seriousness, cumulativeness, curative instruction)
State v. Rodriguez, 146 Wn.2d 260 (mistrial warranted only when nothing short of new trial will assure fairness)
State v. Escalona, 49 Wn. App. 251 (consider prejudice against the backdrop of the entire trial)
State v. Lewis, 130 Wn.2d 700 (reversal for denial of mistrial where prejudice shown)
State v. Wilson, 141 Wn. App. 597 (denial of for‑cause challenge reviewed for abuse of discretion; relationship to witness not automatically disqualifying)
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (standard of review for mistrial denial)
State v. Barnes, 153 Wn.2d 378 (standards for reviewing jury instructions)
State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628 (State must prove every element beyond reasonable doubt; instructions reviewed as whole)
State v. Atsbeha, 142 Wn.2d 904 (diminished capacity requires expert testimony)
State v. Hayward, 152 Wn. App. 632 (assault II mental‑state instructions and related issues)