State Of Washington v. Thomas Allen Christian, 75256-1

On May 17, 2015, Jacqueline Prescott’s purse was stolen from a McDonald’s restroom; it contained two credit cards in her name.
Security footage from Ross and Burlington Coat Factory on June 27, 2015, showed Thomas Christian using a card from his wallet to make multiple purchases; he has distinctive tattoos and wore Adidas shoes recorded on video.
Christian was arrested June 29; officers found Prescott’s credit cards in his wallet. Christian told officers he had used “a bunch of meth” and needed medical attention. He later was arrested again and admitted ingesting meth; officers found a knife/spoon with residue that tested positive for heroin (he was convicted of heroin possession and does not appeal that conviction).
Christian moved in limine to exclude testimony about his drug use under ER 401/403; the court ruled that the defendant’s own statements about drug use would be admissible but did not expressly rule on ER 401/403 balancing when those statements were later admitted at trial.
The defense argued lack of knowledge that the cards were stolen; the State presented video, receipts, and officer testimony linking Christian to the purchases and to knowledge of fraud-avoidance behavior.
The jury convicted Christian of two counts of possession of stolen property (2d), four counts of identity theft (2d), and possession of heroin. Christian appealed the admission of his statements about meth use.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Christian)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by admitting Christian’s statements that he used methamphetamine	Statements were party admissions and admissible; only defendant’s own admissions and physical evidence were offered	Admission was irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial under ER 401/403 (and argued generally under ER 404(b) at appeal)	Court: Trial court abused discretion by not conducting ER 401/403 relevance/probative vs. prejudicial analysis, so admission was erroneous (but)...
Whether the error requires reversal	Evidence of drug use was not central; State stressed other admissible evidence proving theft/identity offenses	Admission of drug-use statements was prejudicial and could have affected verdict	Court: Error harmless beyond a reasonable probability; convictions affirmed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (established Miranda warning requirement for custodial interrogation)
State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918 (objection grounds must be raised at trial to preserve argument on appeal)
State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 689 (reversal required only if error, within reasonable probability, affected outcome)
State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wn.2d 389 (improperly admitted evidence is harmless if minor relative to overwhelming evidence)
State v. Atsbeha, 142 Wn.2d 904 (appellate standard: admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630 (abuse of discretion defined)
State v. Vinev, 52 Wn. App. 507 (CrR 3.5 voluntariness/admissibility distinct from evidentiary admissibility)
State v. Gould, 58 Wn. App. 175 (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)