State Of Washington v. Santiago Ortuno-perez, 196 Wash. App. 771

Background

In October 2013 Jesus Castro was shot at close range (.22 caliber) while standing with 5–12 people nearby; Castro later died. The murder weapon was never found.
Santiago Ortuno‑Perez was arrested the same day; police found a .22 bullet in his jacket pocket but it was not conclusively the fatal bullet and no forensic tie to the killing was established.
Several witnesses at the scene (including Austin Agnish, Zachary Parks, Joey Perdoza, Dechas Blue, and Castro’s girlfriend Erika Lazcano) identified Ortuno‑Perez as the shooter at trial. Some witnesses had given inconsistent statements earlier.
Ortuno‑Perez sought to present “other suspect” evidence and cross‑examine witnesses to show Agnish (present, armed, gang‑affiliated, posting pictures of guns, and having motive) was the actual shooter; the trial court excluded that evidence and barred arguing that anyone else at the scene could have shot Castro.
The jury convicted Ortuno‑Perez of second‑degree murder while armed; he appealed, arguing the exclusions violated his right to present a defense and to confront witnesses. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ortuno‑Perez)	Held
Whether trial court properly excluded evidence identifying Agnish as the shooter under Washington’s “other suspect” rule	Exclusion was proper because proffered evidence did not show steps taken by Agnish to commit the crime and thus failed the Downs test	Proffered circumstantial evidence (motive, opportunity, means, social ties, Facebook posts, witness inconsistencies) tended to connect Agnish to the killing and should have been admitted	Court held the trial court misapplied the rule; the proffered evidence had a logical connection to the crime and should not have been excluded
Whether the court’s rulings impermissibly limited cross‑examination to expose witness bias (e.g., covering for or fearing Agnish)	Rulings limited only improper pointing to a specific third party; cross‑examination scope was sufficient	Exclusions prevented meaningful inquiry into witnesses’ motives to lie or cover for Agnish and thus impaired confrontation rights	Court held the exclusion improperly curtailed confrontation and was an abuse of discretion
Whether the court could bar argument that “someone else at the scene” did it (general‑denial vs. other‑suspect distinction)	Court characterized general statements that others could have done it as impermissible pointing at another suspect	Defense argued that, given undisputed close‑range killing, a general denial logically implies someone else at the scene did it and that arguing those inferences is protected	Court held forbidding argument that others at the scene could have shot Castro converted denial into a hollow claim and unconstitutionally restricted defense argument
Harmless‑error: whether the erroneous exclusions were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	State argued the errors were harmless given the trial evidence and witness identifications	Defense argued the exclusions undermined core defense strategy and affected the jury’s assessment of credibility and identity	Court held error was not harmless; could have altered jury’s view; new trial required

Key Cases Cited

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (invalidating a rule that excluded third‑party guilt evidence based on perceived strength of prosecution’s case)
State v. Franklin, 180 Wn.2d 371 (explaining Washington’s focused relevance/nexus test for other‑suspect evidence and admitting circumstantial linkage)
State v. Downs, 168 Wash. 664 (early articulation of requirement that proffered evidence tend to point clearly to another perpetrator)
State v. Maupin, 128 Wn.2d 918 (holding eyewitness evidence linking another person to the crime can meet the Downs nexus standard)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless‑error standard for constitutional errors)