State Of Washington, V Michael J. Pierce, 47011-0

Background

In March 2009 two homeowners (the Yarrs) were shot with a .25-06 rifle and their home set on fire; their debit card was used at an ATM at 8:11 PM the same evening.
Michael Pierce was arrested for using the Yarrs’ debit card; investigators tied him to a white Honda, a stolen pellet gun taken earlier that evening, and knives found in that car; Pierce admitted only the debit-card theft.
Pierce was tried four times: first conviction reversed on appeal; second trial mistried for juror exposure; third trial ended in mistrial after jail medical provider Conmed failed to continue psychotropic medication, rendering Pierce incompetent for a day; trial court denied dismissal with prejudice.
At the fourth trial the State presented ATM surveillance stills (laid-in identification by Detective Apeland), witness sightings, physical items, and jailhouse informant testimony (two inmates who testified for plea deals); Pierce was convicted on all counts and sentenced to an exceptional 1,404-month term.
On appeal Pierce challenged denial of CrR 8.3(b) dismissal for medication discontinuation, denial of mistrial for a witness mentioning an “appeal,” admission of pellet-gun-shoplifting evidence, admission of Detective Apeland’s lay identification of the ATM photos, refusal to give a cautionary informant instruction, and argued cumulative error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying CrR 8.3(b) motion to dismiss after medication discontinuation	Pierce: Conmed’s failure to continue psychotropic meds was governmental misconduct forcing waiver of speedy trial and prejudicing fair-trial rights, so dismissal with prejudice required	State: Any misconduct did not materially prejudice Pierce’s right to a fair trial; mistrial cured prejudice and a new trial was adequate	Held: No abuse of discretion; Pierce failed to show prejudice materially affecting fair-trial rights and conduct was not sufficiently "outrageous" to mandate dismissal
Whether denial of mistrial was error after witness mentioned Pierce’s "appeal"	Pierce: Reference implied prior conviction and reversal, highly prejudicial, requiring mistrial	State: Reference was brief/ambiguous; curative instruction to disregard sufficed	Held: No abuse of discretion; irregularity not sufficiently serious and curative instruction cured prejudice
Whether evidence of pellet‑gun shoplifting was improperly admitted	Pierce: Evidence of earlier shoplifting improperly suggested propensity to commit robbery/burglary/murder	State: Evidence was res gestae and showed planning/preparation and whereabouts	Held: Even if erroneous, admission was harmless given overwhelming other evidence and Pierce’s concession on debit-card theft
Whether lay identification of Pierce in ATM stills by Detective Apeland was improper	Pierce: Officer no more likely than jury to identify from poor-quality photos; improperly invaded jury fact-finding	State: Apeland had sufficient prior personal contacts to make his opinion helpful under ER 701	Held: No abuse of discretion; sufficient prior contacts made Apeland more likely to identify than jury

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wilson, 149 Wn.2d 1 (discussing dismissal under CrR 8.3(b) as extraordinary remedy)
State v. Oppelt, 172 Wn.2d 285 (standard: abuse of discretion review for CrR 8.3(b) rulings)
State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647 (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273 (three-factor test for mistrial: seriousness, cumulative nature, curative instruction)
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (application of Hopson factors and mistrial standard)
State v. Martinez, 121 Wn. App. 21 (example where prosecutorial concealment was so egregious dismissal with prejudice was appropriate)
State v. Hardy, 76 Wn. App. 188 (lay witness identification from surveillance photos allowed when witness more likely than jury to identify)
State v. Demery, 144 Wn.2d 753 (ER 701 framework for lay opinion testimony)