State Of Washington v. Lesley Alexandra Villatoro, 73332-0

Lesley Villatoro was tried as an accomplice to Chad Horne for: attempted first‑degree murder, first‑degree burglary, first‑degree robbery, and three counts of first‑degree kidnapping based on Horne’s attack on Stephanie Baker and her children. Horne died by suicide after a police chase.
Villatoro drove Horne to the area near Baker’s home, opened her trunk while he removed a duffel bag, then waited nearby with her children; Baker survived and identified a black duffel bag found in her home containing items used in the attack.
Video and other evidence showed Villatoro and Horne recently purchased black duffel bags, bleach, a gas can, and related items; police later found matching items in Villatoro’s trunk (gas can, bleach, men’s clothing, gloves, possible police scanner).
Villatoro was interviewed (recorded) by police the day of the crimes, denied knowledge of the duffel purchases, and exercised her right not to testify at trial; recordings were played for the jury.
The jury convicted Villatoro on all counts; on appeal she challenged sufficiency of the evidence, the absence of pretrial written findings (CrR 3.6), and the trial court’s failure to give a unanimity/deliberation instruction she did not request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Villatoro)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for accomplice liability	Evidence was circumstantial and speculative; she lacked knowledge and intent to aid Horne’s crimes	Evidence (duffel purchases, trunk items, driving and opening trunk, post‑crime conduct, recorded denials) permitted reasonable inference she knew and aided Horne	Convictions affirmed — evidence sufficient to support accomplice verdicts
Trial court CrR 3.6 findings and conclusions	Trial court failed to enter required written findings and conclusions	Court later entered findings and conclusions during the appeal; no challenge to those entries	Moot — findings were entered and not challenged on appeal
Failure to give unanimity/deliberation instruction (raised first on appeal)	Court failed to instruct jury that all 12 jurors must participate in deliberations, denying unanimous verdict right	No manifest constitutional error shown; record contains standard deliberation instructions and no evidence of jury room conduct	Not reached on merits — error not manifest; appeal fails under RAP 2.5(a)
Costs on appeal	N/A (Villatoro)	State sought costs but conceded it was not entitled	No costs awarded to State

State v. Joy, 121 Wn.2d 333 (1993) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to the State)
State v. Vasquez, 178 Wn.2d 1 (2013) (circumstantial evidence must yield reasonable, non‑speculative inferences)
In re Pers. Restraint of Domingo, 155 Wn.2d 356 (2005) (accomplice need only have general knowledge of the charged crime)
State v. Lamar, 180 Wn.2d 576 (2014) (standards for raising manifest constitutional error on appeal)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (no manifest error where necessary facts to show actual prejudice are absent from the record)