State of Washington v. Willie Charles Ritchey, 34637-4

Willie Ritchey was convicted in Spokane County Superior Court of theft of a motor vehicle (RCW 9A.56.065) after being arrested in a reportedly stolen van.
An undercover officer testified Ritchey admitted stealing a key from a friend; the officer characterized Ritchey as "truthful" during that admission. The prosecutor moved to strike that characterization; the court sustained and struck the testimony but declined to give an immediate limiting instruction.
The defense requested a jury instruction on the lesser offense of second degree taking a motor vehicle without permission (TMV), RCW 9A.56.075; the trial court refused.
Ritchey testified he had permission and was returning the vehicle; he was impeached with prior dishonesty convictions and admitted on cross-exam he might lie to help himself.
Ritchey appealed arguing (1) the court erred by refusing the lesser-included TMV instruction and (2) the court erred by not giving a limiting instruction when the officer’s opinion testimony was struck.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether second-degree TMV is a lesser-included offense of theft of a motor vehicle	State: TMV is not an included offense; elements differ	Ritchey: TMV is a lesser offense and jury should be instructed on it	Court: TMV is not a lesser-included offense of vehicle theft because theft can be committed without "taking" (different elements/intent)
Whether the court erred by refusing to give a limiting instruction after striking the officer’s opinion that Ritchey was "truthful"	State: Striking the testimony and giving general jury instruction sufficed; no abuse of discretion	Ritchey: A specific limiting instruction was required to cure the harm of opinion testimony	Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence was struck, jury later instructed to disregard inadmissible evidence, and additional immediate instruction was not required

State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443 (legal and factual prongs for lesser-included instructions)
State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541 (lesser-included offense element test)
State v. Speece, 115 Wn.2d 360 (factual prong requires affirmative evidence for lesser offense)
State v. Fowler, 114 Wn.2d 59 (factual prong not met by mere possibility)
State v. Fuentes, 183 Wn.2d 149 (use of dictionary to define undefined statutory terms)
State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596 (factors for assessing trial irregularities/opinion testimony)
State v. Perez-Valdez, 172 Wn.2d 808 (opinion testimony and abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Weber, 99 Wn.2d 158 (mistrial and jurors following instructions presumption)
State v. Crittenden, 146 Wn. App. 361 (related holding on TMV and theft relationship)