State Of Washington v. Nicholas Ryan Cook, 74449-6

Background

On March 18, 2015, police responded after a witness (Szabo) reported seeing a white Buick (plate ANK7245) near an elementary school; the Buick had been mentioned on a local police "be on the lookout" bulletin about area burglaries.
Officers located a red pickup (plate B06608S); a passenger jumped from it and fled. Officers found Nicholas Cook hiding nearby and observed fresh scratches on him; Cook’s ID was later found in the white Buick.
A backpack recovered from the red truck contained property belonging to the burglary victims (jewelry, prescription medication, an external hard drive).
Cook was charged with one count of residential burglary; his co-defendant Holly Burkhart pleaded guilty. A jury convicted Cook and the court imposed a standard-range sentence of 72 months.
Pretrial, defense sought to exclude evidence suggesting Cook was a suspect in prior, unrelated burglaries (including references to the police bulletin). The court limited testimony but allowed witnesses to testify they had prior information about the white Buick without referencing the bulletin specifically.
At trial, detectives testified (without defense objection) that police had prior information associating the white Buick with Burkhart, Cook, and Cook’s brother, and that officers were "roving the area" based on that information. Cook later argued counsel was ineffective for not objecting to that testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to testimony implying Cook was a suspect in prior burglaries	State: testimony described investigatory history and corroborated reasonable police response (implicit)	Cook: counsel should have objected to inadmissible propensity evidence that violated pretrial ruling and prejudiced the jury	Court held counsel’s failure to object was a reasonable trial strategy given the testimony’s brevity, vagueness, and isolation; no deficient performance or prejudice shown
Whether the trial court would have sustained an objection to the challenged testimony	Cook: the court had ruled to exclude references to the bulletin and prior suspects, so an objection should have been sustained	State: testimony did not clearly identify prior crimes or implicate Cook in those crimes; the court had already limited explicit bulletin references	Court: even if an objection might have been sustained, withholding objection can be reasonable strategy; the record did not show counsel was ineffective
Whether isolated references to prior information amounted to prejudicial propensity evidence	Cook: references effectively informed jurors Cook was linked to other burglaries (propensity)	State: remarks were vague, non-specific, and immediately followed by neutral arrest-related testimony	Court: comments were attenuated and isolated; no further emphasis by State; not prejudicial
Whether appellate costs should be imposed	State: did not contest generally but noted insufficient record on ability to pay	Cook: asked court to waive appellate costs due to indigence and other factors	Court exercised discretion and declined to assess appellate costs against Cook

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (Wash. 1995) (ineffective assistance framework in Washington)
State v. McNeal, 145 Wn.2d 352 (Wash. 2002) (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions)
State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (Wash. 2011) (defendant bears burden to show lack of legitimate tactical decision)
State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870 (Wash. 2009) (standard of review for ineffective assistance claims)
In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647 (Wash. 2004) (failure-to-object ineffective-assistance test and when silence may be strategic)
State v. Madison, 53 Wn. App. 754 (Wash. App. 1989) (decisions about when to object are classic trial tactics)
State v. Donald, 68 Wn. App. 543 (Wash. App. 1993) (failure to object may be reasonable to avoid emphasizing testimony)
State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (Wash. App. 2016) (factors for waiving appellate costs)