State Of Washington, V Nicholas Andrew Oxford, 47291-1

Oxford was subject to multiple domestic violence no-contact orders prohibiting contact with Dawn Bushek.
While jailed, ten recorded phone calls were placed from the jail to Bushek’s phone; two calls used Oxford’s inmate PIN and eight originated from other inmates’ accounts. All calls were recorded.
Portions of the recorded calls (without defense objection) were played to the jury at trial to show contact and speaker identity.
Oxford was convicted on nine counts of violating the no-contact orders and appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to the recordings.
He argued objections should have been made for lack of authentication, hearsay, and Confrontation Clause violations.
The Court of Appeals reviewed ineffective-assistance claims de novo and required a showing that a likely-sustained objection would have occurred and that counsel’s performance was prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authentication of phone-call recordings	Recordings were authenticated by evidence linking calls to Oxford (PIN use, content referencing him and the no-contact order, Bushek’s number)	Oxford argued recordings lacked sufficient authentication	Court held authentication evidence was sufficient; objection likely would not have been sustained
Hearsay	Recordings were offered to show identity and contact, not for substantive truth	Oxford argued recordings were hearsay if used for assertions within the calls	Court held recordings were not admitted to prove truth of asserted matters, so hearsay objection would fail
Confrontation Clause	Statements weren’t admitted for truth; no confrontation issue arises	Oxford argued his confrontation rights were violated by admission of recorded statements	Court held no Confrontation Clause concern because recordings weren’t used for substantive truth; objection would not have been sustained
Ineffective assistance for failure to object	N/A (State prevailed)	Oxford contended counsel was deficient and prejudice resulted from failure to object	Court held defense failed to show deficient performance or prejudice because objections likely would have been overruled; ineffective-assistance claim fails

State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870 (argument review standard for ineffective assistance)
State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222 (Strickland-type performance and prejudice requirement in Washington)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (presumption of effectiveness of counsel)
State v. Danielson, 37 Wn. App. 469 (authentication of telephone-call identity by direct and circumstantial evidence)
State v. Williams, 136 Wn. App. 486 (sound recordings need only prima facie authentication)
State v. Fortun-Cebada, 158 Wn. App. 158 (objection-failure standard — must show objection likely would have been sustained)
In re Personal Restraint of Theders, 130 Wn. App. 422 (no confrontation concern when statements not used for truth)
Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Confrontation Clause context referenced)