State of Washington v. Tabitha Ann Sanchez, 33884-3

Tabitha Sanchez ran a red light, failed to stop for police emergency lights, and was pursued; she stopped in front of a residence and officers tackled and arrested her.
Police arrested Sanchez for attempting to elude and driving under the influence; she refused a breathalyzer.
After arrest she told police she had been fleeing a man in a light-blue Navigator who threatened her over a debt; defense sought to use those statements at trial.
The trial court granted a State motion in limine excluding the hearsay statements (unless an exception applied); the defense did not attempt to admit them at trial or show an exception applied.
Defense counsel questioned why the officer did not conduct field sobriety tests (FSTs); the officer said he could not compel FSTs after arrest and the court limited further cross-examination on the legal correctness of that belief.
Jury convicted on eluding and DUI (with special finding of breath-test refusal); court imposed a 25-month mid-range sentence based on an offender score of 9+. Sanchez appealed challenging cross-examination limits, counsel’s failure to pursue a necessity defense, and proof of prior convictions.

Issue	Sanchez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial court improperly limited cross-examination about officer’s belief he could not require FSTs after arrest	Court’s restriction prevented impeachment and presentation of defense; needed to show officer’s belief was legally incorrect	Officer’s legal belief was collateral and irrelevant; impeachment on collateral legal issue was properly excluded	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; inquiry into officer’s legal belief was collateral and not required for defense presentation
Whether counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a necessity defense based on Sanchez’s statements about threats	Counsel should have introduced hearsay (or called Sanchez) to support necessity defense	No factual basis for necessity; statutory eluding defense exists; defense had reasonable legal alternatives (stop and seek police protection); tactical decisions justified	Affirmed — no deficient performance or prejudice; necessity defense unavailable on these facts
Whether the State failed to prove Sanchez’s prior convictions for offender score calculation	Prosecutor did not introduce sufficient proof of priors	Sanchez and counsel repeatedly acknowledged her extensive criminal history	Affirmed — defendant and counsel’s acknowledgments were sufficient to establish priors

State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11 (review of evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12 (standard for abuse of discretion)
State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713 (limits on exclusion of relevant evidence vs. right to present a defense)
State v. Oswalt, 62 Wn.2d 118 (prohibition on impeachment on collateral matters)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (standards for ineffective assistance review)
State v. Diana, 24 Wn. App. 908 (availability and limits of common-law necessity defense)
State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901 (defendant’s acknowledgment can relieve State’s burden to prove priors)