State Of Washington v. Sean Paul Kelly, 75656-7

Solid Ground stored 50–75 donated boxes in the basement of a renovated, unoccupied building; boxes were later opened, contents dumped and some items broken.
Surveillance video showed several people, including Sean Kelly, inside and leaving the building over the relevant weekend; Kelly did not live at Solid Ground but was seen around the complex.
Police arrested Kelly after he said he entered the building through a window to get boxes for a woman; officers found two clonazepam pills on him.
After eviction of tenant Bradley Minks, Solid Ground employees found donated boxes in Minks’s unit; Kelly was charged with second-degree burglary and possession of a controlled substance.
At trial, witness Ryan Rodriguez testified Kelly stayed with Minks and then stated, unsolicited, that Minks had mentioned Kelly lived there; defense objected, the court struck the remark and instructed the jury to disregard third-party statements, but denied a mistrial; Kelly was convicted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after witness testimony relaying a third party's out-of-court statement	State: The unsolicited remark was inadmissible but harmless given other evidence linking Kelly to the crime	Kelly: The hearsay connected him to the stolen property and amounted to prejudicial evidence of bad acts, requiring a mistrial	Court: No abuse of discretion; statement was not highly prejudicial, was cumulative, and jury instruction cured any prejudice

State v. Wade, 186 Wn. App. 749 (discusses mistrial standard and factors for reviewing denial)
State v. Allen, 159 Wn.2d 1 (standard for abuse of discretion)
State v. Escalona, 49 Wn. App. 251 (inadmissible reference to prior conviction found extremely prejudicial)
State v. Babcock, 145 Wn. App. 157 (hearsay about dismissed charge was extremely prejudicial)
State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161 (instructions and emphasis analysis)
State v. Miles, 73 Wn.2d 67 (discussing inherently prejudicial testimony)