State Of Washington, V. Thomas P. Leae, 82531-3

Background:

Victim Bentley Brookes was shot and killed during a robbery at Pacific Bullion; surveillance video showed Ailiana Siufanua shoot Brookes and steal items.
Surveillance and witness evidence placed a silver Honda Accord with a male driver (later identified as Thomas Leae) near the store shortly before the murder; Leae and Siufanua were seen together in prior surveillance footage.
Items from Pacific Bullion were recovered from the Accord after a high‑speed chase and crash on November 30, 2015; Siufanua died in the crash and Leae was arrested with ID and cash on his person.
Leae was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder (felony murder as an accomplice), first‑degree robbery (merged for sentencing), and rendering criminal assistance; the court imposed a lengthy sentence and discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs).
On appeal Leae challenged sufficiency of the evidence for accomplice felony murder, prosecutorial misconduct in closing, certain detective testimony (opinion and blood‑splatter), his counsel’s effectiveness for not objecting, and the discretionary LFOs.

Issues:

Issue	State's Argument	Leae's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for accomplice felony murder	Circumstantial and direct evidence (surveillance, car, recovered items, motel/bystander IDs) support that Leae aided the robbery and thus is guilty as an accomplice	Evidence was insufficient to prove Leae aided the robbery rather than merely pawning items	Affirmed — evidence sufficient to support accomplice felony murder conviction
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (misstating law; arguing facts not in evidence)	Statements were reasonable inferences from evidence; any improper remarks were curable by jury instructions	Prosecutor misstated accomplice law and argued unsupported facts (e.g., gun access) prejudicing the jury	Rejected — no reversible misconduct; jury instruction and overwhelming evidence cure any error
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to closing argument	Not raised below as reversible error; strategic decision not to object is reasonable	Counsel should have objected during closing; failure was deficient and prejudicial	Rejected — counsel’s choice was a plausible strategy; no prejudice shown
Detective Zapata opinion testimony (guilt / investigation inferences)	Testimony described investigative facts and reasonable inferences; court limited questions to avoid guilt opinion	Testimony improperly stated or implied Leae’s guilt and should have been excluded as opinion evidence	Rejected — trial court did not abuse discretion; testimony was permissible non‑guilt inferences and was carefully limited
Blood‑splatter testimony & related ineffective assistance claim	Detective, with homicide experience, gave lay inferences under ER 701 explaining video blood patterns; no manifest error	Testimony required expert foundation; counsel should have objected	Rejected — testimony admissible as lay inference; failure to object not ineffective; issue largely unpreserved on appeal
Discretionary LFOs (community custody supervision fees, interest)	State concedes discretionary LFOs should not be imposed on an indigent defendant	Court erred by imposing discretionary supervision fees and interest accrual despite indigence and statutory changes	Remanded — strike discretionary community custody supervision fees and interest; also strike robbery reference in judgment (merged count)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216 (1980) (establishes sufficiency review standard)
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (2012) (standards for prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice inquiry)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
City of Seattle v. Heatley, 70 Wn. App. 573 (1993) (limits on witness opinion testimony about guilt)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (applying Strickland in Washington; counsel presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732 (2018) (indigent defendants cannot be assessed discretionary costs)
State v. Dillon, 12 Wn. App. 2d 133 (2020) (community supervision fees are discretionary LFOs)
In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647 (2004) (wide latitude for prosecutor to argue reasonable inferences in closing)