State v. Larson, 249 P.3d 669

In April 2008, Larson was charged with first degree robbery, two counts of first degree assault, and two counts of drive-by shooting tied to the Berger-Jeffries robbery and related incidents.
Dunham pleaded guilty and provided statements implicating Larson and others; Kongchunji also implicated multiple co-participants in other robberies.
Before Berger-Jeffries trial, Kongchunji pleaded guilty and allegedly exculpated Larson; defense sought to compel Kongchunji to testify and hold him as a witness.
Larson’s counsel learned Kongchunji had given police a ‘free talk’ naming Larson; Kongchunji’s counsel warned against testifying, and Larson’s counsel did not subpoena him.
The State amended the offense date from April 15 to April 17, on the morning of trial; court sanctioned the State for delay and allowed extra prep time.
After trial, Kongchunji sent a letter exculpating Statler, Gassman, and Larson; Kongchunji later testified in a separate trial implicating others and alleging threats.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
New trial based on newly discovered evidence	Larson argues Kongchunji’s exculpatory material is newly discovered evidence.	State contends evidence was discoverable before trial and not newly discovered.	No abuse; evidence discovered pre-trial; other factors insufficient
Ineffective assistance for not subpoenaing Kongchunji	Counsel’s failure to subpoena was deficient and prejudicial.	Decision was tactical and reasonable given potential negative testimony.	Counsel’s conduct not deficient; no prejudice shown
State misconduct by threatening witness with charges/perjury	Threats deprived Larson of due process and fair defense.	Warnings were lawful cautionary statements about perjury.	No due process violation proved
SAG - Public defender structure and double jeopardy/other claims	Constitutional conflicts and double jeopardy challenges merit analysis.	Arguments fail; no constitutional defects or double jeopardy violations established.	SAG claims rejected; no reversible error found

State v. Williams, 96 Wash.2d 215 (1981) (new trial standard and abuse of discretion framework)
State v. Roche, 114 Wash.App. 424 (2002) (new trial and evidentiary standards)
State v. Quismundo, 164 Wash.2d 499 (2008) (discretionary failure and legal standards for new-trial motions)
State v. Burri, 87 Wash.2d 175 (1976) (due diligence in witness availability)
State v. Slanaker, 58 Wash.App. 161 (1990) (witness unavailability notion clarified)
State v. Scott, 150 Wash.App. 281 (2009) (recantation of witness evidence and trial timing)
State v. Sherwood, 71 Wash.App. 481 (1993) (accomplice testimony cautionary instruction)
State v. Yates, 161 Wash.2d 714 (2007) (jury instructions on accomplice testimony presumptions)
State v. Vincent, 131 Wash.App. 147 (2005) (same-evidence test for double jeopardy)
State v. Kelley, 168 Wash.2d 72 (2010) (double jeopardy in firearm-enhancement context)
State v. Borrero, 161 Wash.2d 532 (2007) (same-evidence test application)
State v. Grier, 171 Wash.2d 17 (2011) (defense-strategy reasonableness and prejudice standard)
In re Pers. Restraint of Benn, 134 Wash.2d 868 (1998) (perjury and false-testimony considerations in due process)