State of Washington v. Raymond Colin Wetmore-Tinney, 39387-9

Raymond Wetmore-Tinney was convicted of possession of a stolen vehicle after taking a dump truck from a grocery store parking lot.
Wetmore-Tinney admitted to taking the truck but claimed he believed he had permission from an acquaintance.
Prior to trial, the court limited the State’s ability to introduce evidence of Wetmore-Tinney’s past convictions to only two from 2014, excluding older or unrelated convictions.
During trial, the prosecutor asked about additional past convictions, violating the court’s order in limine.
The trial court denied Wetmore-Tinney’s motion for mistrial based on this prosecutorial misconduct, and the jury found him guilty.
On appeal, Wetmore-Tinney argued prosecutorial misconduct and denial of mistrial warranted reversal of his conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor’s violation of in limine order	Prosecutor’s question about other convictions was misconduct and prejudicial	Defendant (State) claimed Wetmore-Tinney misled the jury, opening the door to questions about other offenses	Court agreed with Wetmore-Tinney; reversal and new trial required
Prejudicial impact requiring mistrial	Conduct likely affected jury verdict; mistrial required	Jury not materially affected or curable by instruction	Court found substantial likelihood of prejudice; mistrial should have been granted
Other prosecutorial misconduct (e.g., statements likening to child/thief, personal opinion)	Arguments showed prejudice and improper comment on guilt	Comments either not objected to or not outcome-determinative	Not addressed; first issue was controlling
Additional grounds (ineffective counsel, due process, sufficiency of evidence)	Identified new grounds for dismissal	No sufficient support or specifics provided	Additional grounds denied; evidence sufficient for charge

State v. McKenzie, 157 Wn.2d 44 (defendant must prove impropriety and prejudice for prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529 (defendant bears burden on misconduct claims)
State v. Stith, 71 Wn. App. 14 (prosecutorial violation of in limine order constitutes reversible error)
State v. Avendano-Lopez, 79 Wn. App. 706 (irrelevant and prejudicial impeachment question is improper)
State v. Weber, 159 Wn.2d 252 (prejudice must have substantial likelihood of affecting verdict)
State v. Byrd, 125 Wn.2d 707 (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (appellate review standard for evidence sufficiency)
State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821 (circumstantial and direct evidence given equal weight)
State v. Davis, 182 Wn.2d 222 (deferential review of jury's factual determinations)