State Of Washington, V Samuel F. Valdez, 48740-3

Background

Samuel Valdez was tried and convicted in Wahkiakum County for solicitation to commit first-degree murder, first-degree arson, delivery of marijuana, and possession with intent to manufacture or deliver marijuana based largely on recorded conversations with Christopher Horton and physical evidence seized in a shop/apartment search.
Horton, a friend who wore law-enforcement wires, recorded multiple conversations in which Valdez expressed plans to kill his ex-wife, admitted burning a neighbor’s house, and negotiated payment (including marijuana oil) for a murder. Horton turned evidence over to police.
A search of Valdez’s property recovered large amounts of marijuana oil, cartridges, vape pens, packaging materials, syringes, and marijuana plants.
Valdez moved for a change of venue citing pretrial publicity and small local jury pool; the trial court denied the motion after voir dire and empaneled an impartial jury.
Defense objections at trial often challenged relevance but did not raise ER 404(b) or other specific grounds; many claimed errors on appeal were not objected to at trial.
The jury convicted on all counts; the trial court imposed discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) without a detailed Blazina-style inquiry into Valdez’s ability to pay. The Court of Appeals affirmed convictions but reversed the discretionary LFOs and remanded for proper inquiry.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Valdez)	Held
Change of venue	Local trial was proper; voir dire can root out bias	Pretrial publicity and small pool infected jury; venue change required	Trial court did not abuse discretion; voir dire and empanelment sufficient to show impartial jury
Corpus delicti for arson	Independent evidence (fire, motive, presence, threats) corroborates admissions	Confession alone insufficient; no independent proof fire was willful/criminal	Corpus delicti satisfied by prima facie evidence (motive, presence, admissions); confession admissible
Sufficiency — possession with intent to distribute	Large quantities, packaging, vape cartridges, syringes, and delivery negotiations support intent	Possession alone insufficient; machine absent; no direct proof of intent to deliver	Evidence sufficient: items and conduct allowed a rational juror to infer intent to manufacture/deliver
Evidentiary rulings / ER 404(b)	Evidence of other acts was relevant and admissible	Prior-bad-acts evidence (plane crash, threats, culvert/clogging, catamaran) should be excluded under ER 404(b)	Claims not preserved: objections were on relevance, not ER 404(b); appellate challenge waived
Prosecutorial misconduct (closing/rebuttal)	Closing arguments were fair inferences; burden correctly described	Misstatements, personal opinion, attacking defense counsel, and disclosure of incarceration were improper and prejudicial	Most claims waived for failure to object; some remarks improper but not shown to be incurable or prejudicial given instructions and overwhelming evidence
Legal financial obligations (LFOs)	Court found defendant can pay based on testimony	Trial court failed to make an individualized Blazina inquiry into present/future ability to pay	Reversed and remanded: sentencing court must conduct individualized Blazina inquiry before imposing discretionary LFOs

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jackson, 150 Wn.2d 251 (recognizing voir dire/empanelment as primary means to address pretrial publicity)
State v. Brockob, 159 Wn.2d 311 (discussing corpus delicti corroboration standard in Washington)
State v. Aten, 130 Wn.2d 640 (corpus delicti principles)
Zuercher v. State, 11 Wn. App. 91 (early Washington case finding prima facie corroboration for arson where motive, threats, presence, and fire existed)
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (standards for prosecutorial misconduct and waiver where no trial objection)
State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438 (limits on impugning defense counsel)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (requirement of individualized inquiry into ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (juror impartiality standard)
Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (prejudice inquiry re: juror preconceived opinions)