State Of Washington v. Teklemariam Daniel Hagos, 75569-2

Background

On Feb. 4, 2016, two men (Johnson and Priessnitz) were assaulted in Seattle when a man knocked pizza from their hands and began slashing at them with a knife; bystanders waved down Officer Verhaar.
Officer Verhaar observed a man (later identified as Hagos) swinging a metallic object, followed him without losing sight, and officers later found a knife near the scene that a victim identified as the weapon.
Hagos was detained nearby, agitated and making hostile, vulgar statements before, during, and after arrest (including repeated slurs and threats); witnesses noted possible intoxication or mental-health signs.
At a near-time show-up, Officer Penate shone a light on the detained Hagos and Priessnitz immediately identified him by face, hat, and clothing.
Pretrial, Hagos moved to exclude his pre- and post‑arrest statements under ER 404(b)/ER 403 and to suppress the show-up identification as unduly suggestive; the trial court denied both motions.
Jury convicted Hagos of one count of second-degree assault with a deadly weapon and one count of fourth-degree assault; Hagos appealed the pretrial rulings (and asserted an ineffective assistance claim regarding Miranda during trial).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hagos)	Held
Admissibility under ER 404(b) / res gestae of statements made before and after the assaults	Statements show motive, intent, identity, and form part of the same transaction; thus admissible as res gestae or under 404(b) exceptions	Statements were other‑acts evidence and inadmissible character evidence under ER 404(b)	Admitted: court found statements fit res gestae and 404(b) exceptions (motive/intent/identity) and were properly admitted
ER 403 balancing of probative value vs. unfair prejudice	Probative value (motive, intent, identity) outweighed prejudice; trial court properly exercised discretion	Statements were highly prejudicial and should have been excluded under ER 403	Denied: court did not abuse discretion; probative value substantial and balanced against prejudice
Suppression of show‑up identification as unconstitutionally suggestive (due process)	Identification was reliable under totality of circumstances (viewing, attention, prior description, witness certainty, short delay)	Show‑up was unnecessarily suggestive (handcuffed next to officers; officer prompting) creating substantial likelihood of misidentification	Denied: show‑up was not so suggestive as to create substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification given corroborating view, attention, certainty, and officer Verhaar’s observations
Ineffective assistance claim re: failure to inform jury that officers did not Mirandize Hagos	N/A (claim made by Hagos on appeal)	Trial counsel was ineffective for not highlighting absence of Miranda warnings on video	Denied: record showed court ruled the statements were spontaneous (non‑custodial/interrogation) so Miranda did not apply; no deficient performance shown

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gunderson, 181 Wn.2d 916 (2014) (ER 404(b) standard and abuse‑of‑discretion review)
State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825 (1995) (res gestae / same‑transaction exception discussion)
State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244 (1995) (statements showing motive and recent hostility admissible)
State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792 (1999) (hostile declarations probative of motive/intent/state of mind)
Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969) (defendant must show identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for reliability of identification)
State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709 (2006) (standard of review for suppression findings and conclusions)