State Of Washington v. Said Farzad, 74538-7

On May 5, 2014 Molina Insurance employees reported receiving threatening calls (threats to shoot or bomb); police identified Said Farzad as the caller.
Farzad was interviewed by police, waived Miranda rights, admitted making at least one call and making a statement that a patient might "theoretically" bring a gun, but denied making explicit threats; police phone records showed five calls to Molina that day.
The Medical Quality Assurance Commission charged Farzad in administrative proceedings; he attended, testified, and his medical license was later revoked.
The State charged Farzad criminally with felony telephone harassment (allegedly against Lisa Tyler and Kim Tran) and later added a property-threat count; at trial three Molina employees (Tyler, Tran, Raymond) testified they received threatening calls from Farzad.
Jury convicted Farzad of misdemeanor telephone harassment (lesser included offense of count 1) but the jury deadlocked on the bombing/property-threat count; sentencing followed and Farzad appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of statements from the administrative hearing (Fifth Amendment)	State: No violation because Farzad did not assert privilege at hearing; error not preserved	Farzad: Penalty exception made Fifth Amendment self-executing—threat of license loss coerced testimony	Court: No Fifth Amendment violation; penalty exception not shown—Farzad voluntarily testified, so claim fails
Whether to-convict jury instructions permitted conviction for uncharged conduct	State: Instructions fine; error waived because no contemporaneous objection	Farzad: Instructions allowed conviction based on calls to uncharged victim (Raymond), violating notice and right to defend	Court: Instructions defective; they did not specify victims named in information, allowed jury to convict for uncharged conduct; error constitutional and manifest requiring reversal
Harmless error argument	State: Any instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Farzad: Error prejudicial because jury could have relied on uncharged conduct	Court: Error not harmless—cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt verdict would be same absent defect; reversal required
Preservation of instructional error when not objected at trial	State: Issue forfeited	Farzad: Constitutional error can be raised on appeal	Court: Error is manifest constitutional error under RAP 2.5(a) and may be raised on appeal

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (defendant must be advised of rights before custodial interrogation)
Post v. State, 118 Wn.2d 596 (Wash. 1992) (penalty exception and invocation of Fifth Amendment privilege principles)
Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1967) (threatened career consequences can coerce testimony)
Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1967) (public employees’ compelled statements under threat of job loss inadmissible in criminal proceedings)
Jain v. State, 151 Wn. App. 117 (Wash. App. 2009) (to-convict instruction must align with specific allegations in information; jury cannot be allowed to convict on uncharged acts)
Pelkey v. State, 109 Wn.2d 484 (Wash. 1987) (defendant entitled to notice of charges and cannot be tried on uncharged crimes)
O'Hara v. State, 167 Wn.2d 91 (Wash. 2009) (manifest error standard and when instructional defects are obvious on the record)
Guloy v. State, 104 Wn.2d 412 (Wash. 1985) (harmless error standard for constitutional trial errors)