341 P.3d 976
Wash.2015Background
- Walker was tried as an accomplice to premeditated first‑degree murder, first‑degree assault, robbery, solicitation, and conspiracy based primarily on accomplice theory and testimony of a cooperating cohabitant, Tonie Williams‑Irby.
- Evidence showed Walker planned the Walmart armored‑truck robbery, provided a gun, communicated by phone during the robbery, and allegedly told a co‑participant to "kill" the custodian; Walker bought safes and spent cash after the crime.
- During closing, the prosecutor used a ~250‑slide PowerPoint that repeatedly declared (including in large/red text) "DEFENDANT WALKER GUILTY OF PREMEDITATED MURDER" and displayed an altered booking photo labeled "GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT," among other slides juxtaposing victim and Walker/family photos with inflammatory captions.
- Defense counsel did not object to most of the PowerPoint slides; counsel did object to one premeditation analogy but not to the altered/opinionated slides. Walker was convicted on all counts and appealed.
- The Washington Supreme Court held the PowerPoint misconduct was egregious and prejudicial under Glasmann and other precedent, reversed Walker’s convictions, and remanded for a new trial; the Court affirmed that the accomplice liability and unanimity instructions were legally proper in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Walker's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct — PowerPoint slides (vouching, inflammatory alterations, appeals to prejudice) | Slides expressed prosecutor’s personal opinion of guilt, altered exhibits, and injected prejudice; deprived Walker of a fair trial | Glasmann is distinguishable; the evidence against Walker was strong so any error was harmless | Reversed. Misconduct was flagrant and incurable by instruction; Glasmann governs and requires a new trial |
| Jury instruction on premeditated‑murder accomplice liability ("defendant or an accomplice" formulation) | Instruction relieved State of proving premeditation as to the principal; could allow conviction if intent/acts split improperly | Washington accomplice law permits splitting elements among participants; prior cases uphold this approach | Affirmed. Instruction acceptable here because evidence supported both roles and accomplice liability allows split elements when defendant participated |
| Unanimity (whether jury must agree on mode of participation) | Lack of unanimity instruction violated right to unanimous verdict as to mode of participation | Principal and accomplice liability are not alternative means; jury need not be unanimous on mode so long as all find participation | Affirmed. No unanimity violation under existing Washington precedent; Gunwall not shown to require change |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pers. Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d 696 (Wash. 2012) (plurality opinion) (PowerPoint/vouching precedent; guides when visual aids and prosecutorial opinion require reversal)
- State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (Wash. 2012) (failure to contemporaneously object does not preclude reversal when prejudice is incurable)
- State v. Reed, 102 Wn.2d 140 (Wash. 1984) (limits on prosecutor zealousness; role of prosecutor to seek justice)
- State v. McDonald, 138 Wn.2d 680 (Wash. 1999) (accomplice and principal liability need not be alternative means; unanimity principles)
- State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51 (Wash. 1991) (accomplice liability framework; knowledge standard for accomplice culpability)