State of Washington v. Manuel Steven Abrahamson, 34498-3

Background

On Jan. 18, 2016, Manuel Abrahamson was found by bystanders in Debra Purvis’s car after it was driven away and then returned; he was detained and taken to a hospital where tests showed 0.27% BAC and methamphetamine.
State charged Abrahamson with theft of a motor vehicle; arraigned Feb. 2, 2016; initial trial date set for Mar. 28, 2016.
The State moved to continue the trial because both prosecutors and defense counsel had preplanned vacations; both counsel agreed to the continuance, Abrahamson objected; trial ultimately occurred April 26, 2016.
At trial Abrahamson admitted driving Purvis’s car but defended on lack of intent due to intoxication; jury instruction to convict listed (1) unauthorized control, (2) intent to deprive, and (3) occurrence in Washington.
Jury found Abrahamson guilty; he was sentenced to 45 months and appealed, raising (a) a speedy-trial/continuance claim, (b) a challenge to the to-convict instruction as omitting an essential element (structural error), and several SAG claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Abrahamson)	Held
Whether granting the continuance over defendant’s personal objection violated CrR 3.3 speedy-trial rights	Continuance was proper; CrR 3.3(f) permits continuances for administration of justice and counsel unavailability is valid	Court erred by granting agreed continuance over Abrahamson’s objection and thereby violated speedy-trial rights	Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; counsel vacations justified continuance; defendant failed to preserve specific prejudice and none shown
Whether the to-convict instruction omitted an essential element of theft (ownership/that property belonged to another), requiring reversal as structural error	Instruction, read as a whole, required deprivation of another’s property; any omission would be harmless because ownership was uncontroverted	Instruction omitted an essential element and that omission is structural and not subject to harmless-error review	Court held no reversible error: instruction reasonably read to require victim’s ownership; even if error, omission would be harmless because evidence of ownership was uncontroverted
Whether presence of victim’s husband in initial jury pool tainted jury	Court struck him for cause before voir dire; no juror knew parties; no prejudice	Presence tainted jury pool and biased jury	Court rejected claim: juror was excused pre-voir dire and court affirmatively inquired whether venire knew case or parties; none did
Whether failure to hold an omnibus hearing or trial counsel communications require reversal	Rule CrR 4.5 contemplates omnibus hearing but absence is not reversible per se; counsel-communication claims rely on record outside trial	Failure to hold omnibus hearing and counsel ignored defendant / withheld discovery justify relief	Court denied relief: absence of omnibus hearing does not mandate reversal; communication/representation claims must be raised by personal restraint petition if outside record

Key Cases Cited

State v. Kenyon, 167 Wn.2d 130 (discretionary review of continuance; multiple continuances can be abusive)
State v. Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d 273 (constitutional speedy-trial considerations)
State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 (issue preservation requirement)
State v. DeRyke, 149 Wn.2d 906 (to-convict instruction must include all essential elements)
State v. Richie, 191 Wn. App. 916 (omitted element in to-convict instruction and harmless-error framework)
State v. Smith, 131 Wn.2d 258 (jury must not guess at essential elements)
State v. Brown, 147 Wn.2d 330 (harmless error analysis for instructional errors)
State v. Jones, 117 Wn. App. 721 (counsel unavailability and vacations can justify continuance)
State v. Saunders, 153 Wn. App. 209 (numerous continuances without adequate basis can be abuse)
State v. Fehr, 185 Wn. App. 505 (standard of review for instruction errors)
Guillen v. Contreras, 169 Wn.2d 769 (definition of prevailing party for appellate costs)
State v. Nolan, 141 Wn.2d 620 (appellate costs are permissive)
State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (claims relying on facts outside record require personal restraint petition)