State Of Washington v. Robert Hall, Jr., 73741-4

Background

Police went to a motel to arrest a different suspect; motel manager identified Hall and Snook as suspected dealers and officers found outstanding warrants for both. Officers arrested Hall and Snook and observed drug-distribution paraphernalia in the room. A pat-down found narcotics on Snook and $910 on Hall. A later search warrant produced multiple controlled substances and ledgers/scales.
Snook initially was a co-defendant, pleaded guilty, and was interviewed by Hall’s counsel at a suppression hearing where she testified. The State later disclosed five days before trial that it would call Snook as its first witness.
On the day trial began, Hall moved to preclude Snook or for a one-day continuance because of the late disclosure; the court denied exclusion and denied the continuance because Snook was entering an inpatient rehab program the next morning and defense counsel had previously interviewed her. Snook testified that afternoon.
A jury convicted Hall on three counts of possession with intent to deliver; he was sentenced to 36 months. Hall appealed, arguing exclusion/continuance errors, suppression error (warrant as pretext), and improper accomplice-liability instruction.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s discretion rulings and suppression findings and affirmed: late disclosure and denial of continuance were not prejudicial given prior access to Snook; officers did not use the arrest warrants as a pretext; and the accomplice instruction did not relieve the State of its burden.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hall)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by allowing late-disclosed witness (Snook) to testify	Late disclosure not prejudicial because defense had previously interviewed Snook and called her at suppression hearing	Late disclosure violated discovery rules and prejudiced Hall; witness should be excluded	Denied exclusion; no abuse of discretion — defense was not surprised and had prior access to witness
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying one-day continuance	Exigent circumstances (Snook entering treatment) and defense familiarity justified proceeding	Short continuance necessary to incorporate Snook’s testimony into trial strategy; denial prejudiced defense	Denied continuance; no abuse of discretion — court properly balanced defendant’s rights and witness’s medical exigency
Whether arrest was a pretextual entry/search (motion to suppress)	Officers legitimately arrested persons with outstanding warrants based on manager’s report; search followed after observations and warrant	Arrest was a pretext to search the room for drugs; suppression required	Motion denied; findings supported that arrest purpose was custody, not pretextual search
Whether accomplice-liability jury instruction relieved State of burden of proof	Instruction using "the defendant or an accomplice" in to-convict language properly informed jury of State’s burden beyond a reasonable doubt	Instruction improperly lowered State’s burden or confused jury about who must be proved to have acted	Instruction upheld; to-convict language including "or an accomplice" is an approved practice and did not relieve burden

Key Cases Cited

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (arrest warrant carries limited authority to enter dwelling when suspect likely inside)
State v. Vavra, 33 Wn. App. 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982) (standard for reviewing denial of motion to exclude late witnesses)
State v. Ramos, 83 Wn. App. 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996) (co-defendant turning state's evidence is not unforeseeable)
State v. Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d 813 (Wash. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuance denials)
State v. Teal, 117 Wn. App. 831 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003) (accomplice-liability burden and approved to-convict phrasing)
State v. Cronin, 142 Wn.2d 568 (Wash. 2000) (jury instructions cannot relieve the State of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Haack, 88 Wn. App. 423 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (discusses to-convict instruction phrasing for accomplice liability)