State Of Washington v. Michael Halvier Snook, 74653-7

On March 20, 2013, police found Michael Snook hiding inside an unoccupied Kent residence and discovered property (a record player) in his car; he was arrested and charged with second-degree burglary (count I).
On April 3, 2013, surveillance footage showed a man resembling Snook removing items from the same house with a wheelbarrow; the State charged a second count of second-degree burglary (count II).
Snook moved to sever the two counts twice; the trial court denied both motions. The jury convicted on count I and acquitted on count II.
When the jury returned its verdict, Snook was absent from court; the trial court found his absence willful, accepted the verdict in his absence, polled the jury, then issued a bench warrant after excusing the jury.
Snook later explained his absence as a phone/communication problem and sought to quash the warrant; he appealed asserting errors including denial of severance, violation of his right to be present, and cumulative error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Snook)	Held
Denial of severance of two burglary counts	Joinder proper; counts similar and would be cross-admissible; judicial economy favors joint trial	Joinder was manifestly prejudicial because evidence strength differed and could spill over from strong to weak count	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; Russell factors weigh against severance
Right to be present when verdict accepted	Proceeding without defendant was justified after warning and attempted contact; defendant voluntarily absent	Taking verdict in Snook's absence violated constitutional right to be present	Court affirmed: trial court made sufficient inquiry, found voluntary absence, any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Adequacy of jury instructions re: separate consideration of counts	Instructions told jury to decide each count separately; jury presumed to follow instructions	Instruction insufficient under Sutherby standard to prevent cross-use of evidence	Court affirmed: Sutherby distinguishable (sexual-offense context); instruction adequate here
Cumulative error claim	No significant individual errors shown; no prejudice when aggregated	Combined errors denied fair trial	Court affirmed: cumulative-error doctrine not applicable without prejudice shown

State v. Bythrow, 114 Wn.2d 713 (1990) (standard for severance and abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24 (1994) (factors to evaluate prejudice from joinder)
State v. Lough, 125 Wn.2d 847 (1995) (admissibility and instruction presumptions; ER 404(b) analysis)
State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870 (2009) (joinder prejudice special concerns in sexual-offense cases)
State v. Thurlby, 184 Wn.2d 618 (2015) (defendant's right to be present and waiver by voluntary absence)
State v. Irby, 170 Wn.2d 874 (2011) (harmless-error standard for due process right to be present)
State v. Atherton, 106 Wn. App. 783 (2001) (required inquiry and procedures when defendant absent)
State v. Greiff, 141 Wn.2d 910 (2000) (cumulative error doctrine requires shown prejudice)